Original Position is a concept created by John Rawls, saying that if you were to be born randomly in one place, you'd want to avoid risking in a bad area, and as such, you would want to make sure every area is good. That if you lost your original position in life, you would want to make sure that you don't get hurt.
The problem is that this is appeal to hypocrisy and doesn't concern itself with any actual ethical principle. It's just an extension used for a pre-existing socialist belief that it relies on entirely.
There's also TvTropes' attempts at expanding it, that I will address here.
The kinds of people (especially Americans) who think living in a post-apocalyptic world would be "cool" tend to use this fallacy. They assume that in a world with no law, order, or government, they could do whatever they want and would thrive. But they fail to realize that the whole "do whatever you want" thing wouldn't just apply to themselves, it would apply to everyone else. Many think that "raiding a store" would be sufficient enough to let them live comfortably, ignoring that pretty much everyone else would be trying to raid the stores too — and without farms or other agricultural infrastructure, sooner or later the stores will just run out. If you want to survive at all, you're pretty much forced to go back to subsistence farming and premodern standards of living. This also presumes that they will survive to be part of the post-apocalypse in the first place. Every doomsday-prepper presumes they won't get killed during a nuclear war, a Zombie Apocalypse, a meteor shower, an alien or demonic invasion... etc. Those who yearn for the Rapture also assume that they will be one of those taken to Heaven (especially if their confession mentions having limited seats). Many disaster movies don't clearly portray what you can comfortably presume are >90% human casualties.
This tells me how I know they haven't talked to preppers. Anyone of them who have a serious interest don't fuck around, they aren't just going to raid supermarkets, they plan out how to survive. They have methods of storage, many live off the grid, some even live in bunkers.
Ayn Rand would reassure her followers who feared they were the "parasites" she railed against by telling them that because they had superior taste in reading material, they were among the "perfect producers" who would inherit the world.
The government is still in control. Objectivists aren't Gods who can poof away the state, so them being smarter is something to factor in, especially if they try to remove the state from their lives. And they would often believe in business and try to make money for themselves, so they very well could inherit the Randian world, especially if crony corporations also fell without government support and allowed opportunities for Rand's business savvy disciples. It wouldn't even be bad if someone mentioned mutual self-interest (and in the fact that Objectivists aren't a collection of sociopaths, no one sees Ayn Rand as a deity).
This theory is behind the quote paraphrased from John Steinbeck, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires". That is, though they are currently poor, they think they'll be among the tiny number of poor people to become extremely rich somehow, and so are against things intended to help the poor that could be bad for the rich.
Ah yes, the temporarily embarrassed millionaire the thing propped up by socialists to explain why the people their ideologies are supposed to appeal to don't want them. It of course makes more sense than the possibility of Anarchists losing to Tankies who would be just as, if not even worse for the workers than the cronyists. That never happened.
And furthermore, it's based on the predication that Capitalism only helps the rich, which is false. And it also treats the Working class as a block rather than individuals with actual beliefs. Some of the beliefs are terrible, but if you want to represent someone, it's best not to put words in their mouths.
Many anonymous Trolls defend their offensive behavior online (not to be confused with voicing unpopular but valid opinions) by claiming they're entitled to free speech. They're quick to react in horror when other people find out who they really are and exercise their right to free speech to expose them to the public.
Ah yes, because someone saying something stupid is a perfect reason to ruin their lives.
This is one of the reasons for religious individuals who oppose establishing a state religion in their country. Once the precedent is set that the government can favor a specific religion, it could end up not being yours.
That works for all ideologies. If you believe democracy is necessary, you believe that someone bad should be elected if popular.
Most people who advocate using violence to solve problems (especially the lethal kind) think they're the ones in a position of strength. They often aren't. In general, a Social Darwinist who believes in Might Makes Right will quickly change his mind if a) Someone stronger than him is challenging him, b) The 'strongest side' is one that he can't be a part of or c) The side that 'wins' is one he disagrees with or uses tactics that the Darwinist doesn't associate with "strength", such as subterfuge or treachery (or even is just perceived as using subterfuge or treachery). From the opposite perspective people who call those that used violence against their oppressors "terrorists" are almost never willing to be the oppressed side.
This ignores revolutions that worked in the past and Anarchists, radical civil rights groups, and Nazis can do serious damage in terms of riots. And the last sentence doesn't make sense, in the modern day terrorists don't always, if ever, go after the people who actually hurt them, they usually go to innocent people and businesses that they perceive as hurting them (i.e. BLM on the off-chance that they're involved in a riot, Islamist terrorists who attack innocent civilians in the west [when not going after civilians outside of it], wignats who shoot up churches and mosques as an attack against Jews.) and acts like those who don't want to be oppressed and fight back are automatically terrorists because they called the otherside terrorists; it's like saying that gay people can't hate pedophiles because both are seen as harmful sexual deviants by society.
This is a common point made by both sides in the debate over how society in general, or specific institutions, should handle accusations of various crimes, especially hard-to-prove things like sexual assault. Proponents of swift punishment for accused wrongdoers often overlook that they too might be accused, while those who favor a more gradual and deliberate process often fail to picture themselves as a victim waiting for slow justice.
So empathy fails in both situations? Guess empathy should be ignored then, since it's practically meaningless.
For a variant, conspiracy theorists tend to think like this, but in the present tense. They assume that whatever chemical has been fed into the water supply, or whatever radio waves are dumbing down the populace, that they are somehow immune and therefore able to perceive the truth, and are not one of the "sheeple" that they so deride.
Intelligence doesn't mean anything if it happens in front of your eyes.
A common joke involving Mama's Baby, Papa's Maybe runs thus: On his deathbed, a man remarks to his wife that he has one son who is large and strong, a second who is quick and clever, and a third who is a moron. He begs her to answer honestly — is the third son truly his? She reassures him that he is, and the man dies in peace. "Thank God he didn't ask about the other two," she then mutters.
A man goes to Hell. The Devil greets him and says to pick his torture. "You have to pick wisely because this will be your torture for eternity."
The man goes through hundreds of rooms but can't decide, until he sees a room where a man is sitting on a couch, watching sports, and getting a blowjob from a cheerleader. The man says, "This is what I want to do for eternity!" The Devil asks him if he's sure, and the man screams, "Hell, yes!"
The Devil goes over to the cheerleader and says, "You can stop now: I found someone to replace you."
A joke common in historical 4X gaming communities:
My girlfriend told me I should treat her like a princess.
So I married her off to a total stranger to strengthen my alliance with France.
These are just general ignorance, nothing about someone asking explicitly for something and then getting the other end of that specific thing.
Let these people sort out the issues of class, race, and gender. A poor person will be inclined to be for free schools and extensive social security, while a rich person will be inclined to refuse to pay such taxes since he can fend for himself and his own children anyway. But what about a person who doesn't know if he's rich or poor? That person would be more neutral and have a greater chance to form an unbiased opinion.
I doubt Rawls wanted neutrality.
So yeah, the Original Position is moronic and doesn't function for ethics.Or anything really.
Comments
Post a Comment