Sentences with phrase «veil of ignorance»

Many students who have taken a Philosophy or Ethics course will recognize this framework as John Rawl's veil of ignorance.

It's an obvious instance, to which all who operated behind a veil of ignorance would readily consent, of exercising one's right to justice as fairness.

Or, in the case of John Rawls, they are behind a pre-social «veil of ignorance» making deals with one another according to their calculated self - interest and thus bringing «society,» with its key idea of justice, into being.

The «state of nature» and «veil of ignorance» are fables; nobody has ever encountered, nor can we even plausibly hypothesize, persons apart from society.

When in the first instance the decisions made behind the «veil of ignorance» have not resulted in exactly the principles of justice he wants, he changes the conditions behind the veil.

Those gathered behind the veil of ignorance accept that all endowments of the self, both natural and acquired, are in Rawls» phrase «arbitrary from a moral perspective.»

Imagine instead that participants must decide on the rules before the race is run, when their ability to predict the outcome is obscured by a «veil of ignorance.»

I view the belief in god now as some sort of «veil of ignorance» — not stupidity but some sort of mechanism, defense, shield that keeps the fantasy alive inside and keeps reality at bay on the outside.

Most of A Theory of Justice works out these procedural and (hence) political - ethical consequences of the veil of ignorance and the original position, and it is this material that has occupied most commentators.

Many of us who have written about Rawls» argument have noted that the people behind his famous «veil of ignorance» are a peculiar kind of people (i.e., people very much like John Rawls) and therefore can hardly serve as the normative deliberators producing universal moral principles.

We do not come to our footballers, and managers, behind a veil of ignorance.

But Rawls also insisted that the people behind his famous «veil of ignorance» must consider the consequences of their actions over «at least two generations».

For Rawls departures from equality require special justification, but the disvalue of such departures is not intrinsic, but derivative of the value of moral equality represented by the choice situation behind the veil of ignorance.

Even its distinguishing hallmark — the lack of information (the veil of ignorance)-- in fact highlights the correspondence between the two approaches.

They argued as libertarians and egalitarians, and imagined «what's the right thing to do» from behind Rawl's «veil of ignorance.»

A little closer to home, a short article I wrote for Counsel to Counsel Magazine got me thinking about the U.S. healthcare debate, and in particular about how Rawls» thoughts on a «veil of ignorance» lead to an argument in support of universal healthcare in the genomics era.

New York Times — Ryan, Romney and the Veil of Opulence — Benjamin Hale — This is a take on John Rawls's veil of ignorance to talk about fairness in politics.

One of the great «impossible things before breakfast» is John Rawls's thought experiment called the veil of ignorance.