How does the veil of ignorance apply?
If someone believed in the veil of ignorance, they would approach the issue of survival cannibalism and consent by trying to remove their own personal perspective. The veil of ignorance suggests that when we make decisions about morality, we should imagine that we don’t know who we are in the situation. So, when applying this to survival cannibalism, a person would think about what rules or decisions would seem fair if they didn’t know whether they were the one who might have to eat another person or whether they were the one who might be eaten. From this perspective, they might decide that, because we don’t know if we’ll be the person eating or the one being eaten, the principle of consent should be strongly respected in all cases. They could argue that no one should be forced into cannibalism without their agreement, as it might violate their rights and dignity, and that, if survival cannibalism were to happen, it should be done in the most ethical way possible, where all parties involved consent to it.
What would the view of someone be who believed in the veil of ignorance?
Someone who believes in the veil of ignorance would likely emphasise fairness and equality in the decision about survival cannibalism. They would argue that decisions should not be based on who is involved, but rather on the idea that everyone should be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of whether they are the one eating or the one being eaten. In this context, they would probably suggest that consent is crucial, as no one would want to be forced into cannibalism, and that the rules governing such decisions should be created with the idea of protecting everyone’s rights. They would want to create a fair system where people in extreme situations are treated with as much care and respect as possible, and where their dignity is maintained. So, a person who believes in the veil of ignorance would likely argue for consent as a key factor and would try to ensure that any decisions made are in the best interest of everyone involved.
How useful is it as a response?
The veil of ignorance is quite useful in providing a moral framework for survival cannibalism and consent, as it encourages people to consider fairness above personal bias. By imagining that we don’t know whether we’ll be the one eating or the one being eaten, it forces us to think about how we would want to be treated in either case. This can lead to a strong argument for consent and respect for human dignity in such extreme situations. However, the veil of ignorance may be less practical when faced with the immediate realities of life-or-death survival situations. In such moments, the urgency of survival might overshadow considerations of fairness, and people may act out of desperation rather than moral principles. While the veil of ignorance provides a useful ethical guideline, it might not always be the most practical or helpful tool in an actual crisis where emotional and instinctual decisions are needed quickly. Nonetheless, it remains a useful tool for discussing how we should approach extreme situations from a fair, impartial standpoint.
Create Your Own Website With Webador