My not very original position

Off for a week's holiday so no posting for 7 days. However one more little post before I go.

Using Rawl's Original Position to draw up a social contract it can be argued that you should take the choice that produces the highest payoff for the worst outcome. However the worst possible outcome, by its nature as an extreme position, is an outcome with a very low probability.

Maybe you would decide to insure against such extreme events but surely the most rational course of action is to plan for the most likely outcome, since the probability is the only information you have to plan with. Therefore you would therefore decide on a world where the most possible people, since this is most likely to include you, got the best of the probable results. Or to put it another way; you would want to bring the best results to the greatest number of people.

Also given that under the Original Position you would have no idea what the best results for you would be, you would want to keep your options open and be at liberty to pursue whatever it was when you found out. Since everybody would come to the same decision and they would not want you to interfere with their pursuit of happiness either. Liberty unobstructed except by the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

Not a very original position I know.