The idea is to establish principles of justice without knowing what your position is in society; not that the society forces the same outcome.
Take your example of athleticism. You probably wouldn't want a society based on the principle "society values people according to their athleticism" because you don't know if you will be athletic or not. However, you might want a society based on the principle "society values whatever traits someone brings to the table" because then the athletic person can be valued for their athleticism and the non-athletic person can be valued for some other trait.
The idea is nonsense, as I said. No, I wouldn't want a society based on the principle "society values people according to their athleticism." As I said, you are begging the question and removing the agency from this hypothetical justice-seeking person.
I might want a society that lets me excel, create a business, and make money, if I turn out to be good at that. Rawls' "experiment" is simply forcing everyone to be like him.
Rawls' "thought experiment" is always employed by people who already agree with him about liberalism, to "prove" that everyone would agree with him if he rigs the experiment.
(And by the way, if you want to see ignorance, look in the mirror.)
The idea is to establish principles of justice without knowing what your position is in society; not that the society forces the same outcome.
Take your example of athleticism. You probably wouldn't want a society based on the principle "society values people according to their athleticism" because you don't know if you will be athletic or not. However, you might want a society based on the principle "society values whatever traits someone brings to the table" because then the athletic person can be valued for their athleticism and the non-athletic person can be valued for some other trait.
The idea is nonsense, as I said. No, I wouldn't want a society based on the principle "society values people according to their athleticism." As I said, you are begging the question and removing the agency from this hypothetical justice-seeking person.
I might want a society that lets me excel, create a business, and make money, if I turn out to be good at that. Rawls' "experiment" is simply forcing everyone to be like him.
> The idea of "yourself" having no knowledge of yourself is an absurdity.
But your knowledge of "yourself" is likely to be flawed, and/or to evolve as time goes on.
As Mark Twain famously said, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
> your knowledge of "yourself" is likely to be flawed
I see. So your knowledge of other people is better than their knowledge of themselves? And you get to make choices for them?
I don't even know what the point of that last quote is supposed to be. Yes, he did say that. So what?
> * So your knowledge of other people is better than their knowledge of themselves? And you get to make choices for them?*
I don’t understand: Neither of your statements follows from mine.
Oh, and sometimes — not always by any means, but sometimes — others do know us better than we know ourselves.
No one said anything about exact same outcome as everyone else. You've just projected that from behind your deeply ignorant veil.
Rawls' "thought experiment" is always employed by people who already agree with him about liberalism, to "prove" that everyone would agree with him if he rigs the experiment.
(And by the way, if you want to see ignorance, look in the mirror.)