• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • (sub)Text
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

The Veil of Opulence

August 14, 2012 by Wes Alwan 7 Comments

Benjamin Hale sum up why it is Americans end up voting for policies that actually thwart their interests: they make decisions about justice according to a "veil of opulence," the opposite of the "veil of ignorance" advocated by Rawls:

Those who don the veil of opulence may imagine themselves to be fantastically wealthy movie stars or extremely successful business entrepreneurs. They vote and set policies according to this fantasy.

...

But the veil of opulence operates only under the guise of fairness. It is rather a distortion of fairness, by virtue of the partiality that it smuggles in. It asks not whether a policy is fair given the huge range of advantages or hardships the universe might throw at a person but rather whether it is fair that a very fortunate person should shoulder the burdens of others. That is, the veil of opulence insists that people imagine that resources and opportunities and talents are freely available to all, that such goods are widely abundant, that there is no element of randomness or chance that may negatively impact those who struggle to succeed but sadly fail through no fault of their own. It blankets off the obstacles that impede the road to success. It turns a blind eye to the adversity that some people, let’s face it, are born into. By insisting that we consider public policy from the perspective of the most-advantaged, the veil of opulence obscures the vagaries of brute luck.

This is the philosophical answer to the question asked by Thomas Frank in What's the Matter with Kansas.

-- Wes

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Web Detritus

Comments

  1. dmf says

    August 14, 2012 at 7:25 am

    the competing definitions of fairness, and the realities of luck/contingency, are vital to any discussion of our public life but by what research method does the good prof. come to his diagnosis of mass delusion of this particular type/symptomatology?

    http://newbooksinintellectualhistory.com/crossposts/thomas-wheatland-the-frankfurt-school-in-exile-university-of-minnesota-press-2009/

    Reply
  2. dmf says

    August 14, 2012 at 11:29 am

    maybe someday you guys can get Brian Leiter to come on and talk about Nietzsche and social darwinism.
    http://newbooksinhistory.com/2009/10/09/jennifer-burns-goddess-of-the-market-ayn-rand-and-the-american-right/

    Reply
  3. Vasili says

    August 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

    John Steinbeck

    Reply
  4. doug lain says

    August 15, 2012 at 1:00 am

    I would go one step further, or maybe just a half step further. When it comes to material and social success in life “the realities of luck/contingency” are not the only inhibiting factor. In our class society wherein the majority must work for a wage and produce a social surplus, the majority must also face many necessary constraints against opulence and power. That is, while on a case by case, individual by individual, basis a combination of luck and moral character are determining the outcome, the majority taken together face an impediment that is impersonal and necessary. That is, no amount of hard work or luck could possibly lead the majority into opulence and empowerment, nor could either emancipate the collective from the necessity of wage labor and exploitation.

    Reply
    • dmf says

      August 15, 2012 at 7:44 am

      we can more or less measure factors like access to resources, and capacity to manage one’s time/efforts, and various other social/institutional interactions, and so flush out something akin to environmental affordances and resistances, but speculating about motives is a much more opaque matter so it raises interesting questions about what sorts of rigor/methods would separate philosophy from mere (say Thomas Friedman or Andrew Sullivan style) punditry?

      Reply
  5. That Guy Montag says

    August 15, 2012 at 5:56 am

    Actually, I think the point about the Veil of Opulance is it’s a bit stronger than just that it’s the opposite of the Veil of Ignorance. The idea is that our notion of fairness, if it isn’t properly policed, has a tendency to fall into the trap of the Veil of Opulance. So one very stark example will be that the Golden Rule, do unto others, actually really isn’t a very useful rule if what we’re interested in is moral reasoning because it fools us into thinking that just as long as we put ourselves in someone else’s position we’ll be able to come upon the right solution: it’s incredibly self-directed and as a tool for moral reasoning leads to all the wrong sorts of conclusions. The distinction therefore between the Veil of Ignorance and the Veil of Opulance is meant to be the same as the distinction between the Veil of Ignorance or Kant’s Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule.

    As a personal bugbear, this is most stark if you’ve ever had the misfortune of having to deal with the particularly annoying kind person who gets “morally” indignant if you call them out for being rude and inconsiderate.

    Reply
    • Mark Linsenmayer says

      August 16, 2012 at 8:15 am

      I take the point about subjective considerations undermining the attempt to be fair.

      However, I think there also may be something to the point that adopting a God’s eye view and putting all the pieces in society in their places to make things most fair is exactly the prohibited move if you’re trying to prevent anything like tyranny.

      An alternative is to admit that government is for adjudicating competing complaints, so you DO have to consider fairness from particular points of view, but you just make sure to have the underprivileged (or their representative) at the table to make demands as well.

      On Aristotle’s view, you’re not ultimately trying to make things most abstractly fair, but to prevent revolution without resorting to repression, and since the rich are going to be more of a worry in this respect per capita, they do effectively get more of a voice, but the poor need appeasing too.

      (I’m not sure I buy this but am trying to explore the alternative…)

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • dmf on Ep. 293: Donna Haraway on Feminist Science (Part One)
  • PvI#31: Signs, Signs, Ubiquitous Signs w/ Brooke Breit on Ep. 290: Susanne Langer on Our Symbol-Making Nature (Part One)
  • Seth Paskin on Ep. 278: Derrick Bell on the Dynamics of Racism (Part One for Supporters)
  • Eli Eichner on Ep. 278: Derrick Bell on the Dynamics of Racism (Part One for Supporters)
  • Conner Fields on Ep. 292: Langer on Symbolic Music (Part One)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2022 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in