Hacker News Reader

Comment by r_hoods_ghost | Hacker News Reader

John Rawls: A theory of justice. It's attempt to derive a theory of justice (obv.) using methods borrowed from analytic philosophy was hugely influential. Whether you agree with Rawls' conclusions or not it's a brilliant, meticulously argued book, albeit incredibly dense.

View on HN

I am reading Rawls’ followup book, “Justice as Fairness”, which he describes as a kind of restatement or correction to Theory of Justice. I am not sure if it would have been better to read the original first.

The idea of the Veil of Ignorance for deriving fundamental principles of justice is now one of the most fundamental ideas in my own moral philosophy.

Yes! While I'm often suspicious of simplistic models like the Veil of Ignorance, it's really among the best in western philosophy: it's easy to understand, and its implications are compelling and clear.

The concept also carries a kind of common-sense appeal that practically bridges the gap between "is" and "ought." Maybe it bears some relationship to human instincts for social behavior and empathy -- is there any literature that describes such a relationship?

> common-sense appeal that practically bridges the gap between "is" and "ought."

That intrigues me, because if there's one thing that is particularly tiresome about Socialists it's that they invoke Hegel to rationalize everything they want and propose.

There is no necessity of a gap between "is" and "ought" - the assumption that there is presumes that either things are not ordered towards an end or that we cannot known that end. But that's clearly wrong. See Socrates' discourse with the slave boy in Meno and the universal desire for justice and happiness that all human beings posses.

> But that's clearly wrong.

Woefully lacking in details here.

> See Socrates' discourse with the slave boy in Meno and the universal desire for justice and happiness that all human beings posses.

What part would you like more elucidation of?

One descriptive theory of morality is Moral Foundations Theory[0]. Jonathan Haidt introduces it in his popular book The Righteous Mind[1].

My current thinking is that, since normative principles (what ought to be) cannot be demonstrated to be universally true, the best we can do is demonstrate that they are consistent with our core instincts and motives. For example, being generous to others is not right based on some external principle, but because if I had sufficient emotionally maturity, security, and insight I would recognize that my deepest desires extend far beyond immediate gratification of my physical desires.

[0]: https://moralfoundations.org/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind

I couldn’t finish The Righteous Mind (too dry) but Moral Foundations Theory (and the examples in the book) has made a profound impact on my understanding of perspectives I disagree with, and generally made me much more empathetic and inquisitive when I encounter such perspectives. Really powerful stuff.

Yes, the veil of ignorance (original position) is a very important idea. It doesn't come from Rawls though. Both Vickrey and Harsanyi wrote about it earlier (and perhaps better, since they didn't introduce implausible assumptions like infinite risk aversion).

I got a minor in philosophy in college and we read this book for one of my classes. At the time it was one of the hardest books I'd ever read. But someday I'll go back and reread it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com