Talk:Veil of ignorance

Opening heading
I came across this page in a random search. It contains a bad grammatical error (second para), but I don't know enough about the subject to be sure of the appropriate correction. JackofOz 02:24, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * If the error is still there, can you at least indicate what it is? There might be more than one grammatical error in the second paragraph, so it'd be good to make sure your particular one gets addressed. --Ryguasu 12:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this article redundant with Original position? If there are no objections I am going to merge this into the other article. --Malathion 5 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)


 * What about Kant? I thought that he originally explained that we can't get beyond our senses, and called it the veil of ignorance (but I'm trying to remember this from first-year philosophy, so I could be wrong). In any case, I've linked here from fallibilism and the link comes off as a little odd because veil of ignorance redirects to Rawls. Any ideas? --Frekja 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Languages Sidebar
How come the Hebrew version of this entry does not appear on the sidebar of other Languages? I don't know how to change this. See the link, including the sidebar that leads to this entry, and its German equivalent:

http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%9A_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.38.105 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Veil of ignorance (philosophy) → Veil of ignorance — I suggest that this is the primary topic and that the later music album is strictly secondary. Further, as there are only 2 topics, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. Cyber cobra (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:TWODABS. -- Ja Ga  talk 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear primary topic. Ucucha 21:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, because it's the primary topic (incidentally not because of TWODABS, which just says what we should do after deciding that there's a primary topic).--Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

71.192.133.139 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)== SF story reference unnecessary ==

The reference to an SF story about the concept at the end seems pointless and possibly an exercise in self-promotion to me, given that neither the author nor the story referenced are in any way particularly note-worthy. IMO it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.180.242 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconding removal of story. Zelightbrigade (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The story made it back, despite being perhaps the worst of the examples people keep piling on this article. This isn't TV Tropes. 71.192.133.139 (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate to have 'in popular culture section'?
For when a 'veil of ignorance' has been used as a plot device? One example springs to mind- the Doctor Who 50th Anniversary film (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Doctor). This sentence in the plot section outlines the relevant part "They exit the painting in the present in the Black Archive and use the archive's mind-wiping equipment to render the UNIT members and Zygons temporarily unaware which of them are which. The countdown is stopped and all present negotiate a perfectly fair peace treaty, as they no longer know which way to skew it."

Another example would be the SF story referenced previously in this talk page.

Thoughts?

Bias in Application: Polygamy
There is bias in the polygamy subsection. A single author's position is stated but there is no commentary, no explanation, no context. What is a reader to do, just accept the author's statements as a correct application and conclusion from behind the veil of ignorance? 161.31.0.30 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This page needs help in 2020, perhaps a merge with original position and social contract
The structure of this page seems contorted in order to not give Rawls primacy in coming up with "veil of ignorance". As a result the first sentence is an empty sentence, followed by a vague sentence and eventually getting to the idea of a social contract. While I have no doubt that all of the philosophers mentioned talked about "issues" and "morality" I have serious doubt they get credit for "veil of ignorance". My quick scan of the sources on this page shows zero evidence that they came up with the idea that is the title of this page. So unless I'm wrong, some of this page should be merged with social contract and some of it should be merged with original position. I'm not sure which title should remain the main page OP or VoI. I'd appreciate some help in figuring this out. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Veil of ignorance" is a section in the article on "Original position" by Samuel Freeman in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The lead of that article calls the veil of ignorance "the main distinguishing feature of the original position".
 * Recommendation: Redirect this page to Original position, remove the wikilinks to this page from the target page, merge whatever seems worthy of salvaging from this page into the target page, and put the first occurrence of "veil of ignorance" in boldface per WP:R. Add the redirect to the categories Category:Concepts in ethics, Category:Philosophical analogies, and Category:Thought experiments in ethics. Biogeographist (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I'll hold a beat for more comments and then flag it for a merge. Cheers.DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposed
It's being discussed here.DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)