more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Wouldn't it be more rational to choose principles that would maximize the average position, perhaps subject to some 'floor' level beneath which they would not want to take the risk of sinking?
Gist of Idea
Isn't it more rational to maximise the average position, but with a safety net?
Source
Adam Swift (Political Philosophy (3rd ed) [2014], 1 'Rawls')
Book Ref
Swift,Adam: 'Political Philosophy (3rd edn)' [Polity 2014], p.26
A Reaction
The criticism is that Rawls's prediction is over-cautious, and that people will take mild risks in what they choose, as long as there is no danger of disaster. (Just as you should allow small children to risk injury, but not death).
| 3280 | Why does the rational agreement of the 'Original Position' in Rawls make it right? [Nagel on Rawls] |
| 20552 | The original position models the idea that citizens start as free and equal [Rawls, by Swift] |
| 20594 | Choosers in the 'original position' have been stripped of most human characteristics [Sandel, by Tuckness/Wolf] |
| 20983 | The original position insures that the agreements reached are fair [Sen] |
| 20535 | Isn't it more rational to maximise the average position, but with a safety net? [Swift] |
| 20596 | For global justice, adopt rules without knowing which country you will inhabit [Tuckness/Wolf] |
| 22849 | Rawls's theory cannot justify liberalism, since it presupposes free and equal participants [Charvet] |