Against (An Idiots Interpretation of) Rawls

• Self-Interest is not a legitimate basis for moral rules
• principle: Moral rules should apply to everyone equally
• The mechanism of the "veil of ignorance" reveals peoples moral preferences untainted by self- interest
• People behind the veil of ignorance would choose a society organized on the difference principle: " Social and economic inequalities are to .. be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. "

Why it's stupid (assuming I'm not straw-manning):

• Self interest is a legitimate basis for moral rules
• The mechanism of the "veil of ignorance" does not reveal peoples moral preferences untainted by self- interest
• People behind the VoI would not choose the difference principle:
• Not everyone deserves the same amount of goods. Some people, i,e: criminals, may deserve to be worse off and should not be made better off.
• Rawls Counter: Birth lottery (only do bad things to to web of causation) --> no individual moral accountability for good/evil actions = everyone should be treated equally
• Response 1: Horrific consequences (can't punish murderers) = unacceptable to the average person, even behind the veil of ignorance
• Response 2: Belief in free will/moral responsibility is an axiomatic belief. Not willing to trade it away despite lack of ability to justify it.
• Response 3: No free will --> no personhood --> everything breaks
• Greatest good of the greatest number > care only for worst of. i,e: Would rather leave one person to die of hunger if it meant making 10'000'000'000 poor but not starving people rich and happy
• Leveling down objection: If an inequality makes the good better off while not making the poor worse off, why is it bad?
• Counter: inequality has bad consequences/makes people unhappy
• Not in every case.
• Definition of argument = not making poor worse off in any significant way