{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023058252427184466, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0012135922330097086, 'mean_word_length': 5.875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Making the Veil of Ignorance Work: Evidence from Survey Experiments (forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Vol.4)

The paper provides empirical feedback on impartial reasoning to justice derived from data obtained using online survey experiments. Specifically, our study focused on whether and how different conceptions of the veil of ignorance and John Rawls’s method of reflective equilibrium affect people’s impartial reasoning to justice. Our findings revealed that ordinary people tend to support the difference principle, but their endorsement echoes neither John Harsanyi’s nor Rawls’s reasoning. The results illuminate that findings in human psychology, such as the principles of loss aversion and “perceived luckiness,” cannot be disregarded for denoting relevant impartial reasoning to justice.