Nuke Africa! (Fun with Rawlsian logic)

[hmkpoker]

Let's assume that John Rawls' theory of justice, that society should be stuctured in such a way that one would select it if he were to enter it from a random veil of ignorance, is correct.

Let us also assume that there are six billion people on this planet, and that one billion of them are in Africa.

Let us also assume that Africa is a cesspool of disease, famine and starvation. Poverty and violence run widespread. While a small percentage of Africans enjoy life, most live in absolutely miserable poverty. The poverty is very destructive, both domestically and globally. Africa produces very little for the global economy, and the call for subsidies to keep the Africans alive is high.

Africa presents a problem for our friend behind the veil of ignorance. With ~1/6 of the population, there is a 16.6% chance that he will be born an African, and have to live in miserable squalor.

Africa could, in theory, be subsidized by the rest of the world to a semi-decent standard of living, but this would also drain the world's resources, and lower the quality of life for our fellow behind the veil (though it may reduce some variance).

Let us also assume that we can fly a few planes over the continent and bomb it into oblivion with few environmental externalities. All of the Africans would be wiped out, and there would be no chance for our friend behind the veil to inherit such a lifestyle.

By Rawlsian reasoning, is it not best to structure society in such a way that one has the best chance of a worthwhile life? And if so, doesn't eliminating the poor facilitate that?

[bobman0330]

I think the only reasonable interpretation of that theory would have to include the dead Africans as "possibilities" for the ignorant guy.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the only reasonable interpretation of that theory would have to include the dead Africans as "possibilities" for the ignorant guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This means that time is a dimension that is not being accounted for.

If there were a way to ensure that a utopia, a world of peace, wealth and happiness, could be created by selecting against the violent, unproductive and miserable, the world would certainly be better for the man behind the veil several generations from now, but debatably worse for the time being.

Is this better or worse than protecting the impoverished?

[iron81]

Cliff's notes on the "veil of ignorance" please.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Cliff's notes on the "veil of ignorance" please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Original Position.

John Rawls said that thebest society is one which would be selected by someone if he were to enter from behind a "veil of ignorance," that is, if he were to to be incarnate a human life at random.

In other words, if you were to come into this earth without knowing what body you were going to inhabit, what kind of social structure would you want to exist? Would you want to "risk it" and enter a capitalistic society wher eyou might do very well, but you might also be born into poverty, or a socialistic world where the least well off are cared for?



Hence the twist in the OP: if you can upgrade the condition of the least well off (which is the goal of society) by getting rid of the people at the bottom, isn't that a good thing to do?

[Richard Tanner]

If we aren't bound by realism, then the correct answer is to kill everyone but a man and women, since they have everything in the world, and it's the only option, it's 100% effective right?

Cody

[DVaut1]

Because you were being a jackass in the other thread, I decided I'd come here and be a nit in this thread. But it's an important point if this thread is supposed to go anywhere.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume that John Rawls' theory of justice, that society should be stuctured in such a way that one would select it if he were to enter it from a random veil of ignorance, is correct.

Let us also assume that there are six billion people on this planet, and that one billion of them are in Africa.

Let us also assume that Africa is a cesspool of disease, famine and starvation. Poverty and violence run widespread. While a small percentage of Africans enjoy life, most live in absolutely miserable poverty. The poverty is very destructive, both domestically and globally. Africa produces very little for the global economy, and the call for subsidies to keep the Africans alive is high.

Africa presents a problem for our friend behind the veil of ignorance. With ~1/6 of the population, there is a 16.6% chance that he will be born an African, and have to live in miserable squalor.

Africa could, in theory, be subsidized by the rest of the world to a semi-decent standard of living, but this would also drain the world's resources, and lower the quality of life for our fellow behind the veil (though it may reduce some variance).

Let us also assume that we can fly a few planes over the continent and bomb it into oblivion with few environmental externalities. All of the Africans would be wiped out, and there would be no chance for our friend behind the veil to inherit such a lifestyle.

By Rawlsian reasoning, is it not best to structure society in such a way that one has the best chance of a worthwhile life? And if so, doesn't eliminating the poor facilitate that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideal-spectator theorists, when they put themselves behind the veil of ignorance like Rawls suggests, are supposed to deliberately impoverish themselves of information. The exercise loses all meaning if we know that we could bomb poor people out of existence, or otherwise eliminate them, and that we wouldn't have a chance of being poor. The intent of the exercise is to develop principles of justice; conceivably, by putting ourselves behind the veil of ignorance and creating some principles of justice that we can all agree to, we could then use this information to 'structure society'. By using the veil of ignorance to 'structure society', you're putting the cart before the horse. I mean, we might catch philosophers sometimes colloquially say we use Rawls to "structure society" as shorthand; but the implied step here is that we're crafting principles of justice first.

So the question Rawls would ask here, to discern a legitimate principle of justice, is something like "would we put ourselves into this world knowing there's a 16.6% chance we might be one of the Africans who gets blown up" -- if the answer is "no", then we could conclude that one principle of justice we might have is something like "let's not bomb poor people". The exercise is pointless if we assure ourselves ante-hoc that we won't be the guy who gets blown away.