Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am reading Rawls’ followup book, “Justice as Fairness”, which he describes as a kind of restatement or correction to Theory of Justice. I am not sure if it would have been better to read the original first. The idea of the Veil of Ignorance for deriving fundamental principles of justice is now one of the most fundamental ideas in my own moral philosophy.
Yes! While I'm often suspicious of simplistic models like the Veil of Ignorance, it's really among the best in western philosophy: it's easy to understand, and its implications are compelling and clear. The concept also carries a kind of common-sense appeal that practically bridges the gap between "is" and "ought." Maybe it bears some relationship to human instincts for social behavior and empathy -- is there any lit…
My current thinking is that, since normative principles (what ought to be) cannot be demonstrated to be universally true, the best we can do is demonstrate that they are consistent with our core instincts and motives. For example, being generous to others is not right based on some external principle, but because if I had sufficient emotionally maturity, security, and insight I would recognize that my deepest desires extend far beyond immediate gratification of my physical desires.
[0]: https://moralfoundations.org/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind