A liberalist solution to every ethical dilemma.

Shawn April 04, 2019 at 03:52 2025 views 3 comments

As abstractly as possible, here is the veil of ignorance in standard form in regards to trolly dilemma's, or matters pertaining the social good. It's kind of philosophy 101, but here it goes:

1. You have a choice regarding a dilemma, that cannot be resolved through objective standards like lottery making or chance.
2. Your bias influences your choice.
3. You can choose to act on your biases or recuse yourself.
4. In a perfect world and with perfect knowledge, everyone realizes this and recuse' themselves since no 'objective standard' can be attained due to the conditions imposed on point #1.
5. Dilemma averted.

As an important point that reinforces 5 is through mandating that point number 4 be self-reinforcing through making sure that those who claim that they have a non-biased view or 'objective standard' on the matter be eliminated from choice making on the matter. Here I have in mind, RWA's or closet fascists or closet totalitarians or sociopaths (if we are all liberalist or lovers of democracy.)

Comments (3)

Deleted User April 04, 2019 at 04:46 #272388 0 likes

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Shawn April 04, 2019 at 05:10 #272394 0 likes

Quoting tim wood

That is, the results that you think will happen are only speculative, or problematic. This is captured in the phrase many of us have thought or said on some occasion, "I thought I was doing the right thing." And the stronger case when you do not have control and know that you don't.

These are epistemic conditions over which (a non-ignorant, pun intended?) individual has little "choice" over.

Quoting tim wood

And bias, on close look and in a particular case, approaches irrelevancy - assuming people are trying to act in good will, and granted bias over many cases is very relevant.

But, it is not. Bias is everywhere. Just look at my topic on prison populations. Rife with bias and some prejudice.

Quoting tim wood

Problem with #4: a person with perfect knowledge will not be biased - because he knows - and therefore must act in accordance with what he knows.

No, you misunderstand. Perfect knowledge is a term I borrowed from game theory pertaining to what you know about what others know ad infinitum. Omniscience doesn't have any bearing here. I had meant #4 to be in terms of what others would consider one biased, and it applies to everyone. Anyone who claims that they are not biased is excluded from the game.

Quoting tim wood

And I think you have to offer us for current purpose a careful definition of "dilemma." If you can self-excuse yourself from the dilemma, then you're not in one.

Not necessarily. As per the OP, recusal is still a choice, so any decision theory ethical dilemma must end in perfect closure with the choice to recuse oneself from making a decision. This is a very important point that many people don't realize or are never told when facing an ethical dilemma, which I suppose I'm trying to stipulate here. Which, BTW, I think is a cheat to say the least to not allow anyone to recuse themselves.

Quoting tim wood

Recusal is a term of art at law. It really doesn't work with either ignorance or bias (although bias is a form of ignorance).

That doesn't exclude it from being applied in ethical dilemmas of social good.

Quoting tim wood

Bottom line, imo, is that a free agent may always choose. And having that freedom, he or she knowing that they are free, are in that freedom freed to do the best they can under their circumstance. And arguably are obliged to as a matter of duty.

It's not a zero-sum game. Competence is a concept that arises here. The duty falls apart if the wrong person (one who doesn't apply the veil of ignorance) is fulfilling some duty.

Quoting tim wood

The real problem, imo, is finding the right imperative by which to advise or even govern your decision. On those there is room or debate - at least until the right argument is found. I'm assuming the right argument will persuade all reasonable parties, and that it exists in all cases.

Again, an epistemic concern. This is mitigated by appealing to authority, which is another issue entirely.

Shawn April 04, 2019 at 20:17 #272686 0 likes

bump