Topic: Please point out the Failings of the Original Position. - page 2. (Read 4114 times)

If our decisions are based entirely subjectively from our own experiences, since economics and most social sciences lack an objective standard how would we know if something coincides with reality or not?

Most of our decisions are based entirely subjectively from our own experiences, since economics and most social sciences lack an objective standard. Thus, the "veil of ignorance" would either result in our "agreement" either being utterly without standing in reality, or we wouldn't come to one.

Furthermore, even assuming we came to a conclusion that wasn't based on false premises (as any agreement we came to under the circumstances would be), we wouldn't have any right to impose it on those who are wrong, for the reason that individuals have the right to make mistakes (assuming we are unequivocally correct in our view, ignoring the impossibility of that occurring)

So if we were in the original position you believe we would come to the conclusion that it is ok for a large group to steal, kill, etc but not for an individual to do so.

Who is everyone?

Either it is literally everyone, in which case it is voluntary and thus requires no enforcement, or it is justified through a large web of contradictions and vague interpretations (it is okay for a sufficiently large group of people to steal, kill, etc but not for an individual to do so, etc).

Your argument is spineless. Try harder.

I moved this over from the other thread

I don't agree with social or political justice. True justice doesn't require oppression, which "social justice" does.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Original Position
First published Tue Feb 27, 1996; substantive revision Sat Dec 20, 2008

The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests. Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and prerogatives of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons....................  See above link

I created this thread because I want to get a wide range of critiques.  Please argue against the original position model or any of its components.