Discussion Prompt:

For this forum, choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post.

Topic A: Rawlsian Justice

John Rawls claims that justice comes down to a notion of fairness. He proposed a thought experiment wherein he proffers an ideal “original position.” The idea is that representatives of the people operate behind a “veil of ignorance” when determining what policies are in the best interests of all of the citizens. As Kao writes, Rawls assumes that people will act benevolently if they are rational, self-interested, and behind the veil of ignorance.

Imagine you are a representative behind this veil. Pick a moral issue with regard to fair distribution of resources like loan forgiveness or universal healthcare and give an argument for or against based on Rawls veil of ignorance.

Topic B: Egoism

Consider the relationship between egoism and social contract theory. Both theories explore the role of self-interest in shaping morality and societal structures. Using examples from the lessons, discuss whether you believe morality is primarily a product of self-interest (as egoism and Hobbes’ contractarianism suggest) or if it stems from a deeper sense of altruism or fairness (as Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” implies). How do these theories align or conflict with your own views on the origins of morality and justice?

In your response, address the following:

• Do you think self-interest is a sufficient foundation for morality, or does it require something more?
• Describe psychological vs ethical egoism as noted in the lesson. What are your thoughts on the implications of the idea that people are naturally greedy and only controlled by fear of punishment, as suggested in the Ring of Gyges.
• Can a balance between self-interest and fairness be achieved in modern society? If so, how?

Please be sure to tie your responses directly to the material in the lesson, readings, and videos provided and cite them directly.

Peer Reply Guidance:

When replying to peers, focus on advancing the discussion by offering new ideas, asking thoughtful questions, or providing strong evidence from the readings or research. For Topic A, challenge or expand their view of fairness using Rawls ideas and real-world examples. For Topic B, critique or support their stance on egoism by exploring its practical effects or deeper implications, backed by evidence.

This discussion aligns with the following:

• Course Objective:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion Rubric v.5

reply to:

WK4 – Topic B Egoism & Social Contract Theory

• Contains unread posts
• Daniel Wilkinson posted Feb 24, 2026 2:09 PM
• Good afternoon everyone! Hope everyone did well with the week 3 assignment.
• This week I decided to go with Topic B: Egoism & Social Contract Theory. There was a lot more material to read through and videos to watch, a lot to take in.
• How does self-interest and fairness shape our society? To compare egoism and social contract theory is interesting because they both start with the ideas that humans want to protect themselves, but they reach different conclusions on how to treat others.
• I believe morality is a product of self-interest. It usually needs something more to be “fair”. Hobbes argued that humans are naturally prone to “squabbling” and “fighting”. In his view, the “state of nature” is a scare place and is “nasty, brutish, and short”. This results in people entering a social contract where they gave up freedom to a ruler (Leviathan) in exchange for safety. This suggests that we are necessarily good by nature but follow rules to avoid living in chaos (Political Theory Video, Hobbes).
• According to some of the course material it is important to distinguish between Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism. Psychological Egoism is the theory that we are always motivated by self-interest even when doing something that looks helpful and Ethical Egoism is the idea that we should act in our own self interest because it is the right thing to do (Intro to Philosophy: Ethics Chapter 4). This leads to the Ring of Gyges story. The “Get Away with Anything” video shows that if someone could become invincible and never get caught they might commit crimes for selfish gain. This supports the idea that people are naturally greed and only follow rules for fear of punishment (Get Away with Anything Video).
• Hobbes focuses on fear, Rawls focuses on fairness. He proposed the “Veil of Ignorance” where we imagine we are waiting to be born but have no idea if we will be rich, poor, healthy, or sick. Rawls suggests that if we were playing the lottery we would choose a society that protects the “worst case scenario”. This balances self-interest with fairness because we want the rules to be good for everyone “just in case” we end up at the bottom (Political Theory Video, Rawls).
• I think balance can be achieved if following Locke’s idea that generosity becomes easier when resources are plentiful (Intro to Philosophy: Chapter 4). As Rawls suggested, if there was a societal safety net of good schools and hospitals people might be less greedy because they don’t fear for their survival. To me, a fair social contract is one where we act our of self-interest to stay safe but use fairness to ensure everyone has a chance to be successful.
• -Dan
• 0 Unread
• 0
• Unread
• 0 Replies
• 0
• Replies
• 0 Views
• 0
• Views

Discussion: Egoism/Social Contract Theory

• Contains unread posts
• leonard mckinney posted Feb 24, 2026 1:21 PM
• Hello Class,
• I am choosing Topic A on Rawlsian Justice and focusing on student loan forgiveness as the moral issue for fair distribution of resources.
• Imagine I am behind Rawls’s veil of ignorance. I do not know my family background, my intelligence, my future job prospects, whether I will come from money or struggle financially, or if I will even go to college. All I know is that society needs educated people to function well, but higher education costs a lot, and many rely on loans to get degrees. Rational self-interest pushes me to design rules that protect the worst-off positions, since I might end up there.
• Without knowing my place, I would worry about ending up in a family where college seems impossible without debt, or where loans pile up because of low-paying jobs after graduation, bad luck in the economy, or even predatory schools. Student debt can trap people for decades, blocking homeownership, starting a family, or even basic stability. That creates inequality not from effort or choices, but from arbitrary factors like birth circumstances or market shifts.
• Rawls’s difference principle says inequalities are okay only if they benefit the least advantaged. The current system lets some graduate debt-free while others drown in loans, often those already disadvantaged. Forgiveness, especially targeted at lower earners or public service workers, would help level things by reducing burdens on the worst-off without removing incentives to work hard or choose useful fields.
• I would support broad student loan forgiveness behind the veil because it makes society fairer for whoever ends up disadvantaged. It promotes equal opportunity to pursue education without lifelong punishment from bad draws in life’s lottery. A just system should not let arbitrary luck ruin chances for a decent life.
• Leonard.