Instead of editing my prior post, I'll start a new one.
A man by John Rawls wrote a very influential book, A Theory Of Justice, which argues a very simple test for just mores. If you were to be placed behind a veil of ignorance such that you did not know what you would be born as or raised as, you still would agree that the mores or rules should be a part of society. Take slavery for example. If you didn't know whether you would be born black or white, would you agree to a rule that it is okay to buy and sell black people as property? The answer is obviously not. One can pose your suggested ethic similarly. If you didn't know beforehand whether you would be born into a religious family and likely therefore end up religious, would you still want your views on discriminating against religious people to be universally adopted?
A man by John Rawls wrote a very influential book, A Theory Of Justice, which argues a very simple test for just mores. If you were to be placed behind a veil of ignorance such that you did not know what you would be born as or raised as, you still would agree that the mores or rules should be a part of society. Take slavery for example. If you didn't know whether you would be born black or white, would you agree to a rule that it is okay to buy and sell black people as property? The answer is obviously not. One can pose your suggested ethic similarly. If you didn't know beforehand whether you would be born into a religious family and likely therefore end up religious, would you still want your views on discriminating against religious people to be universally adopted?
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
