The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The conclusions of "The Veil of Ignorance" are a just standard by which public policy must be made

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Argument Due
We are waiting for XDM to post their argument for round #2. If you are XDM, login to see your options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 day ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 68 times Debate No: 97515
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Acceptance and Definitions
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing Statement

The Veil of Ignorance is a thought experiment proposed by John Rawls which changes the perspective of anyone participating to that of a consciousness ignorant to the specifics of the situation in which they will be born into. A better, more complete explanation can be found here:

I will be arguing that the conclusions drawn from this thought experiment are a just standard of by which public policy should be made.

The "conclusions" strictly stated are as follows (and are stated in the link)
"1st each person will be given the most extensive basic liberties possible without intruding upon the liberties of others, and
2nd there will be equal opportunity for everyone to climb the economic and/or social ladder and that any social or economic inequalities that are allowed must be arranged so that they improve the access to Primary Goods for the Least Advantaged"

The Primary Social Goods: "1) Rights and Liberties, 2) Powers and Opportunities, 3) Income and Wealth, and 4) conditions for Self-Respect".

By "just" I mean the dictionary definition "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair"
By "Standard" I mean the dictionary definition "an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations"
By "Public Policy" I mean "the principles, often unwritten, on which social laws are based"

Essentially my argument is that for a society to be fair, as one who does not yet know the specifics of their birth would wish it to be, it must adhere to the conclusions of this thought experiment.

My opponent will argue that adhereance to these conclusions would make society unfair.


I accept. I look forward to an interesting debate :)
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by V5RED 2 days ago
So you want to debate that the purpose of a thought experiment designed to do X is to do X? I don't get it. How is this a debate?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.