According to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance, in order to achieve nonpartisan attitude, one must push aside who they are, completely ignore their social identity, and make decisions without it.
It sounds nice, but is that really possible?
I'm taking criminal justice courses, and we're learning about different cases - criminal, white crime, environmental, and in each classification, it who the person is, and where they come from that plays a role in the case, whether it be psychologically/mentally or where they come from geographically.
Just recently, I read an article about a billionaire who was around 48, and decided to commit to his girlfriend... by adopting her to avoid any monetary discrepancies. We live in a society where people place so much emphasis on status and money that it is difficult, no matter how hard we try to get away from being discriminatory towards others.
In regards to things like race and money, I hope that someday we will be able to get past the bias, and live in an equilibrium - but if it's not one thing it's another. We always find a way to differentiate ourselves from other people; it's our human nature.
I feel that Rawl's veil of ignorance, is a nice concept, but
realistically, I'm not sure if its an entirely plausible ethical
guideline.
No comments:
Post a Comment