the general rule is that if there is any element of research in an activity, that activity should undergo review for the protection of human subjects.
Does that review consider the difference principle (to the greatest good of the least-advantaged members of society)?
For the most part, the term "practice" refers to interventions that are designed solely to enhance the wellbeing of an individual patient or client and that have a reasonable expectation of success. The purpose of medical or behavioral practice is to provide diagnosis, preventive treatment or therapy to particular individuals 2.
Rawlsian justice is predicated on idealism as it relates to justice within a society. Behind The Veil of Ignorance many of our social identities are not known to us. One must then wonder how something like "practice" based on what works for the individual fits into a Rawlsian approach to justice or care.
Just as the state has no right to force you to do things with your body that you don’t want to do, it also has no right to force you to do things with your other property, like giving it away to the less fortunate. That might be a nice thing to do, but it isn’t something others can force you to do.
Hmmmm...is there a "line" for this? Like if you are hoarding resources is it morally wrong or out of line for the government to redistribute resources in a way that may inconvenience you?
In Nozick’s view, once you have ownership rights, you can do pretty much what you want with it, so long as you do not violate anyone else’s rights
Is that actually possible to do whatever you want without infringing on the rights of others?
In the complete absence of probabilities, Rawls thinks you should play it safe and maximise the minimum you could get (a policy he calls Maximin). Translated into a society, that means that we should ensure that the worst-off people in society do as well as possible.
So if it doesn't consider "the least of these" it falls short? But how do we know who is the least of these if the Veil hides so much of our personal identities?
The Veil is meant to ensure that people’s concern for their personal benefit could translate into a set of arrangements that were fair for everyone, assuming that they had to stick to those choices once the Veil of Ignorance ‘lifts’, and they are given full information again.
HOW?! This operates on a lot of assumptions about the willingness and behavior of humans. Maybe I'm not as optimistic as Rawls and therefore the actual issue is that I'm not able to see past my own biases and known facts about myself?
People in the Original Position are assumed to be free and equal, and to have certain motivations: they want to do well for themselves, but they are prepared to adhere to reasonable terms of cooperation, so long as others do too.
Seemingly, Rawls is starting at a place of believing that will do the right thing as long as others will also agree to doing the right thing. That said, who moves first in doing what is "right"?