There is a clear winner in the “Andrew’s Least Favorite Ethical Theory Contest,” Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance.
Honestly, I think the man had a veil of ignorance on when he thought up this theory. It is illogical to think that people can ever truly get rid of their bias or social advantages when it comes to making ethical decisions.
I think it’s obvious that people that have advantages would find a hard time going under the veil of ignorance. However, oftentimes I think it is not the most powerful and rich people who have that problem.
Take the Gates’ Foundation as an example. This is a group of multi-billionaires that are pledging to give away over 90 percent of their fortunes away either before or upon their deaths. When people have that ridiculous of an amount of money, it isn’t hard for them to give a large part of it away, or even most of it.
I think the advantages that are hardest to give up are the slight advantages. The middle class has the hardest time giving up the advantages it has gained. Most of this, I believe, comes from the fact that they are just one (societal) step from poverty, and they don’t want to give up the social and financial advantages that keep them in the middle class.
However, those with advantages aren’t the only ones that would not want to forget where they are on the social totem pole under the veil of ignorance.
If everyone else gives up their advantages, I believe the disadvantaged are in a position of power. If they were to think of everyone as equal, they would do their best to make it fair, but if they remember their true disadvantages they could make it so that their disadvantages become advantages.
Basically, this ethical theory could never work in a true ethical dilemma. People have too much to gain/lose by giving up their place in society to work towards a common aim.
Andrew Bay 