you make some great points.

I agree that we can't just wipe all injustices and pretend to live in a happy world where we are all equal and have equal resources, because that just isn't feasible.

Assuming we collectively decide to ignore all that and let bygones be bygones, and everyone (or I suppose a large enough majority of those impacted [who can actually resist- as if that were just]) agree. Where do we go from there? — Outlander

- I guess what the activity wants is for you to explain why you choose to formulate an entirely different principle, what it would look like (a breif description like options 1-5) and how you would explain this decision to society. Feel free to expand on this! Its super interesting (for me anyway!)

But for argument sakes, if you were in the original position and were going into this society that is hypothetically being created, we aren't talking world wide, perhaps just the country you live in.. you are under the veil of ignorance, your not sure of your race, religious beliefs, financial situation etc and you are designing this ideally fair and just country where everyone is equal and has the same resources readily available, knowing you will be living there and whatever you chose will govern the rest of your life. which principle or principles would you choose from the 5 provided? I know they all have their issues but if you had to decide what would you choose? Remember you know nothing of your life or situation so you need to make the decision for the whole society rationally, fairly and impartially.

I am from New Zealand, your close haha

thank you for this!

You just need to be able to explain why you chose the option that you did, in your case option 6. So you don't need to convince them to agree with you, you just have to be able to explain and justify why you chose the way you did.

Number 2 and 5 made me laugh, I thought sims too when I first read this activity! I would love to hear what you come up with for option 6 and why!

I am drawn to 6 too as I see problems with each of the five other options.. But I have no idea what the ideal just and fair society where everyone had resources distributed evenly would look like! Would love to hear your thoughts!

Cheers

this is the original activity https://crookedtimber.org/2004/03/18/game-on-rawlss-second-principle/ . I am just re-asking it here to try and gauge other peoples opinions. There is no right or wrong answer, its about how you perceive it and your reasoning's for why.

The original position (OP) is a hypothetical thought experiment which aims to determine which principles should structure the ideal, just and fair society, made up of equals. To prevent people from acting out of self-interest and bettering themselves while designing this society, John Rawls proposed it should be designed by parties in the OP. This means the decision makers must make selections for society as if they were behind a” veil of ignorance”, with little knowledge about themselves, only basic biological and psychological information. This prevents them from knowing what their role in the future society will be, thus forcing participants to mutually agree on the principles and resource distribution rationally, fairly and impartially. The lack of self-knowledge is known as the OP.

So this activity is basically that you are on a committee who needs to mutually agree on how society will be structured going forwards (it is all hypothetical) . You will also be apart of that society, however when designing the society you are in a state of mind that you don't know who you are or who anyone else is (this is called the original position), in the new society you could be a postman or you could be a lawyer, so by being in the original position you will make an impartial decision that is fair and just to ALL within that society, and your choice/choices will govern the rest of all of your lives.

The reason for the client aspect of the question, is because they want you to be able to explain why you chose the option/options that you did once you have made so they are pretending you made the choice for someone else, and are justifying your reasoning to them.

I hope this is all making sense, its not my question or scenario. I'm just trying to figure out how other people would answer the question because I am stumped!

this is nothing to do with psychology. I'm just an ex psychology student who is doing a philosophy course currently and trying to adapt my thought process. It is about the original position. So you when you are in the original position proposed by Rawls, it is a hypothetical thought experiment where your aim is to create the ideal fair and just society, in order to achieve this you must pretend you don't know who you are or who anyone else is or what your position in the new society would be, this way your decision will be fair and not self benefiting. So with the information provided above, you know your client is not disabled.. But that is all you know. Now using the 6 options provided you must either chose one option to govern everyone's entire life, combine them of create your own principle.
I hope that makes sense

Thanks everyone. After further thought, I think the first principle is the most important. Because without the initial acquisition, the other two principles would not be needed as there would be nothing to transfer, and nothing to rectify. What do you think?

Sure thing. In regards to distributive justice, the three main principals are
1) justice in acquisition - which is about the initial acquisition of holdings and how a person justly acquires rights to something previously unowned
2) justice in transfer - which covers how a person transfers these holding rights to someone else
3) the rectification of injustice in holdings- the principle of dealing with holdings that are unjustly acquired (rectification of violations of the other two principals).

Nozick believed for a person to be entitled to their property, the ownership must have satisfied all 3 principals.

We were asked this exact question in class (I am an online student so don't have much interaction with other students) , and we're told there is no right or wrong answer as it is a personal belief as to which (if any) is more important.

I based my own answer on nozicks belief that ownership must satisfy all 3 principals therefore one is not more important than the others. This however
is the first philosophy course I have taken, and am still learning to think critically and am asking the question here to see other peoples opinions in a philosophical discussion to try and broaden my critical thinking.

Thanks!