does the veil of ignorance entail a certain motivational constitution? i thought that people with different motivations organizing society from behind the veil of ignorance would arrive at different conclusions, like its just an algorithm that sucks up individual motivations and spits out universal norms
it might, depending on how you define love. if love is unconditional care for another person's well-being, then yes. if it is attachment based on the pleasure another person brings or might bring you, then no.
is conflict arising from lust/greed/insanity a form of moral disagreement? is the issue with the decadent/powerhungry/deranged that they are ethical egoists?
instead of answer this question i am gonna talk around it because it isn't really put in genesist terms. first i would distinguish between conflict and moral disagreement. conflict is when two or more parties are trying to harm each other. moral disagreement is when people have different moral interpretations of the world. also, i don't think that lust/greed/insanity are sufficient to create conflict. they are sufficient to create wrong-doing, where one party takes advantage of a zero-sum situation to profit off of another party's loss, but wrong-doing is also not conflict. and also i think it is a mistake to interpret power hungry people as self-interested or egoistic in the genesist sense, i.e., innocent. attaining power is the only way to impose your favourite moral order on the world, but there are many many many other ways to pursue personal happiness that work as well or better for less effort, and pursuing personal happiness is what innocents are built to do, so it would take some strong evidence to convince me that any given power hungry person is not a moralist but actually an egoist in the innocent sense
Cover photo is one of Gustave Doré's illustrations for Paradist Lost
what is the difference between the edenic agent and rawls's veil of ignorance?
does the veil of ignorance entail a certain motivational constitution? i thought that people with different motivations organizing society from behind the veil of ignorance would arrive at different conclusions, like its just an algorithm that sucks up individual motivations and spits out universal norms
doesn't abstaining from moral feeling mean abstaining from love? is love not the most significant moral emotion?
it might, depending on how you define love. if love is unconditional care for another person's well-being, then yes. if it is attachment based on the pleasure another person brings or might bring you, then no.
you should read The Reasons of Love
i can't read books the way my life is right now
is conflict arising from lust/greed/insanity a form of moral disagreement? is the issue with the decadent/powerhungry/deranged that they are ethical egoists?
instead of answer this question i am gonna talk around it because it isn't really put in genesist terms. first i would distinguish between conflict and moral disagreement. conflict is when two or more parties are trying to harm each other. moral disagreement is when people have different moral interpretations of the world. also, i don't think that lust/greed/insanity are sufficient to create conflict. they are sufficient to create wrong-doing, where one party takes advantage of a zero-sum situation to profit off of another party's loss, but wrong-doing is also not conflict. and also i think it is a mistake to interpret power hungry people as self-interested or egoistic in the genesist sense, i.e., innocent. attaining power is the only way to impose your favourite moral order on the world, but there are many many many other ways to pursue personal happiness that work as well or better for less effort, and pursuing personal happiness is what innocents are built to do, so it would take some strong evidence to convince me that any given power hungry person is not a moralist but actually an egoist in the innocent sense