John Rawls, liberalism and what it means to live a good life

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Debate over John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” highlights a core tension between prioritizing the worst-off in society and maximizing overall welfare, with critics arguing his maximin principle ignores probability and can justify policies that hobble the majority. Commenters contrast liberal ideals—constitutional protections, individual rights, and fairness of opportunity—with real-world capitalism, pointing to structural inequality, corporate influence, and rising support for authoritarian “strongmen” as signs liberal systems may be failing their own justice test. Running through the exchange is a broader question of where moral values come from in secular societies, whether liberalism itself functions as a quasi-religion, and how culture and history shape concepts like empathy and human rights.

Rawls’ Original Position & Veil of Ignorance

  • Some see the veil of ignorance as basic moral “table stakes”: design rules you’d accept without knowing your identity.
  • Others argue it’s actually radical if applied consistently (e.g., to criminals, persecuted minorities).
  • Critiques:
    • It ignores knowledge gained from being disadvantaged.
    • It can incentivize ignoring tiny groups (low probability of being them).
    • It presupposes that “fair, identity-blind” rules are the right starting point.
  • Defenders say it’s not a literal optimization problem but a way to insist rules be acceptable from any social position.

Probability, Risk, and Maximin

  • Rawls is said to favor “maximin”: maximize the worst-off outcome, even if it lowers average welfare (e.g., choosing “Junkland” over “Omelas”).
  • Economically minded commenters object that this ignores probabilities and rational risk-taking.
  • Counterexamples (Omelas, potato farmers, green/blue segregation) are used to probe tradeoffs between fairness, total welfare, and feasibility.
  • Some argue the setup pushes people to overweight unlikely worst cases and prioritize small minorities.

Kant vs Rawls

  • Kant’s categorical imperative (universalizable maxims) is contrasted with Rawls:
    • Kant focuses on logical consistency of rules, not imagining you might be anyone.
    • Rawls explicitly asks you to choose rules you’d accept from any social role.
  • Problems with Kant noted: level of rule detail, edge cases, rigid bans on lying.
  • One point: Kantian universalization could in principle justify oppressive norms if you’re happy with them; Rawls’ veil can’t because you might be the oppressed.

Liberalism, Capitalism, and Fairness

  • One line of argument praises liberal constitutional orders: rule of law, contract enforcement, freedoms, everyday trust are framed as a “miraculous” achievement.
  • Critics respond:
    • Rising costs (housing, healthcare), exploitation (fast food, tobacco, HFCS subsidies) and lobbying show the system often prioritizes profit over people.
    • Large inequality is not obviously necessary; more equal systems (e.g., Nordics, mentioned as comparison) might trade some growth for fairness.
  • Defenders of markets claim:
    • Modern capitalism created huge value versus historical alternatives.
    • Inequality is an acceptable byproduct of voluntary choices and risk-taking.
  • Others invoke Rawls: would the worst-off prefer a slightly poorer but more equal system?

Sources of Values and Secular Morality

  • Some secular participants reject the idea that one needs a religion-like, civilization-scale source; they cite:
    • Empathy plus logical consistency.
    • Personal intuition and cooperative instincts (moral relativism).
    • Systems theory and needs of complex adaptive systems.
  • Others argue many Western secular values (empathy, human rights) are culturally shaped by Christianity, even for non-believers.

Empathy, Culture, and Moral Scope

  • Empathy is argued to be culturally constructed: who deserves empathy, and for what, varies.
  • Examples:
    • Homelessness policy (tolerating street sleeping vs removing people to shelters).
    • Market-oriented views that bracket empathy in favor of profit.
  • Individualism is seen by some as reducing the practice or scope of empathy, even if capacity remains.

Strongmen, Discontent, and System Legitimacy

  • One view: people backing strongmen are entitled/myopic and forget how much better life is than in the past.
  • Others counter:
    • Large electorates choosing strongmen signal deep dissatisfaction with current institutions.
    • Voters care about present lived reality, not historical baselines.
  • Debate over whether such voters “want to give up rights” vs are seeking to escape a bad position in the social hierarchy.
  • This is linked back to Rawls: if many are ready to abandon liberal democracy, perhaps it no longer passes an “original position” legitimacy test.

Socialism, Anarchism, and Liberal Variants

  • Discussion on how liberalism intersects with:
    • Liberal socialism (strong state, redistribution).
    • Liberal anarchism / voluntarism (stateless cooperation).
  • Disagreement over definitions:
    • Some treat socialism as inherently state-centered; others note long traditions of stateless socialism/anarchism.
    • Anarcho-capitalism is contested as “anarchist” because it preserves capitalist hierarchies that traditional anarchism rejects.