John C. Harsanyi .  The Maximin Principle.

ORIENTING NOTES WHILE YOU DO THE READING

It seems to me that Harsanyi's is a bad analysis, for several reasons:

1. Every action has catastrophic possibilities.  Even hiding at home under the bed, one could still get hit by a meteorite or killed by a burglar.
2. Harsanyi is comparing one's choice for oneself with a group's choice for how to deal with each other.  The two are not the same.  When I choose to do X instead of Y, I'm resolving the question for both parts of me — the part that wants X and the part that want's Y.  I'm in charge of both of them and have to live with all the consequences, whether good or bad.  In the Original Position, however, our choices are not felt collectively but individually.  Without some cloaking mechanism like the Veil of Ignorance, one's tendency — at least for us winners in the lottery — would be to downplay other people's discomfort in our pursuit of our own comfort.
3. Another difference between Harsanyi's framework and that of Rawls is that Harsanyi's choice situation involves something small and immediate, e.g., crossing the street.  Leaving aside the (ever-present) possibility of something catastrophic, my mistakes in one area can be made up in another.  In the Original Position, however, people are choosing for their fundamental ability to pursue their life plans.  There's no make-up here.  This might lead one to be less of a gambler;  I know it would lead me that way.

FURTHER NOTES [May not be available until after class discussion of the material.]