Is There a Moral Importance of Distributed Justice?

3min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

John Rawls famously imagines that we try to put ourselves in an original position where we don't know who we are in the world. And, and he ends up with a very risk averse suggestion that we want to arrange things to the benefit of the worst off people. So I think if you think all possible, Sean's are actual Sean's, that's the view, right? Then actually you're facing the problem of distributed justice.

Life is rich with moments of uncertainty, where we’re not exactly sure what’s going to happen next. We often find ourselves in situations where we have to choose between different kinds of uncertainty; maybe one option is very likely to have a “pretty good” outcome, while another has some probability for “great” and some for “truly awful.” In such circumstances, what’s the rational way to choose? Is it rational to go to great lengths to avoid choices where the worst outcome is very bad? Lara Buchak argues that it is, thereby expanding and generalizing the usual rules of rational choice in conditions of risk.

Support Mindscape on Patreon.

Lara Buchak received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University. She is currently a professor of philosophy at Princeton. Her research interests include decision theory, social choice theory, epistemology, ethics, and the philosophy of religion. She was the inaugural winner of the Alvin Plantinga Prize of the American Philosophical Association. Her book Risk and Rationality proposes a new way of dealing with risk in rational-choice theory.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.