Rawls Veil Of Ignorance And Justice

Introduction

Rawls describes the ‘veil of ignorance’ as a conception of ‘justice as fairness.’ As such, he argues that “the fairest way to divide rights and resources is to distribute them according to principles that rational people behind a 'veil of ignorance' would agree upon.” Based on this sentiment, it is evident that he aims at designing the original position, in an attempt to describing a significant agreement situation, whereby, fairness exists amongst all parties in a hypothetical social contract. Rawls has the assumption that in an instance where all parties in a social contract have been fairly situated, and thus, take all significant information into account, then certain principles, which they would agree to, should be considered to be fair. In this regard, the original agreement situation fairness is directly transferred to the principles, which every individual agrees to. Furthermore, the laws or institutions, which are required by the justice principles also ought to be considered to be fair. Rawls believes that the principles of justice, which have been chosen in an original position are due to a choice procedure that is designed to incorporate significantly pure procedural justice at its highest level. Notably, Rawls’ feature of original position closely connects to constructivism, and this is in line with his subsequent understanding of the procedure of construction as an original position.

Rawls denotes that there are various ways of defining a fair agreement situation and as such, he notes that it depends on the agreement purpose, as well as the parties’ description to it. For instance, certain facts are regarded as relevant towards engaging in a fair employment contract, and this include the talents of the employee, prior training, motivation, reliability and even experience. This then brings forth the significance of comparing Rawls’ social contract with that of Locke’s. Notably, Locke’s social contract transpires among free and also equal people who have the purpose of knowing everything regarding themselves. Given this knowledge, it is worth noting that Locke has the assumption that whilst starting from an equal political right position, a greater majority of equal and free people, and this includes racial minorities, women and all men, who fail to meet the rigid property qualification can most likely rationally agree to the idea of alienating their natural rights. This is especially of equal political jurisdiction, thus gaining the benefits of the political society.

The problem associated with Locke’s arrangement is that racial classifications, gender, social class, religious beliefs, and wealth do not pose as good reasons, which can deprive people of their equal opportunities, as well as political rights of occupying social and even political positions. Evidently, the knowledge associated with them, which is in line with other facts are not considered to be morally relevant in making decisions regarding who ought to qualify in voting, holding officer, and even actively participating in the governing, and even administration of the society. In this regard, Rawls provides a suggestion that the reason as to why Locke’s social contract results into unjust outcome is because it transpires under unfair conditions, where parties are having complete knowledge regarding their characteristics, social situations, as well as circumstances. Socially powerful, and also wealthy parties do have access to and are as well able to take significant advantage of their favorable position and exercising their advantage, in order to extract various favorable cooperation terms for themselves and for others, who are in less favorable positions. However, it is clear that the judgements of the parties regarding constitutional provisions are noted to be biased, considering their knowledge of their personal circumstances, as well as their decisions are bound to be insufficiently impartial.

The remedy for such kind of biases of judgement is simply redefining the initial situation. In this regard, rather than having a state of nature, it is evident that Rawls situates the various parties to his own social contract, in order for them not to access the factual knowledge, which is capable of distorting their judgement and thus, resulting into unfair principles. Rawls’ original position poses as an initial agreement situation, wherefore, the parties do not have the information, which enables them to be tailoring the principles of justice, which are favorable to their own circumstances. Amongst the various key features connected to original position, is that no individual knows their place in the society, social status, and even class position, and neither do they know their race or gender, and this is fortune in distributing natural assets, as well as abilities, intelligence levels, education, and such like. Notably, Rawls even has the assumption that parties are not aware of their values or their ‘conception of the good.’ In this regard, it is then worth noting that their principles of justice can only be chosen behind a ‘veil of ignorance,’ wherefore, the veil of ignorance purposes to deprive parties of significant knowledge of various facts regarding themselves, others, and even their society and their history.

However, it is evident that the parties are not completely ignorant of various facts, owing to the fact that they are aware of the general facts regarding persons, and even societies, and this includes knowledge regarding relatively uncontroversial scientific laws, political society, natural science, and even biology among others. Significantly, they also know about various human behavior tendencies, as well as psychological development regarding biological evolution, neuropsychology, and the manner in which economic markets work. They are also aware about various justice circumstances and this include limited altruism, as well as moderate scarcity, desirability of primary social goods, which are required by every individual to be able to live a desirable life and thus, develop moral powers that are in line with other capabilities. However, it is evident that what the parties often lack is knowledge regarding facts of their personality and those of other individuals’ lives, and knowledge regarding the historical facts concerned with the society, its level of resources, religious institutions and others. In this regard, Rawls thus thinks that owing to the fact that the parties are required to agree on some objective principles, which supply universal justice standards that apply across societies, then knowledge on historical facts relating to any individual or a society poses as morally irrelevant and thus, potentially prejudicial to their personal decisions.

It is significant noting that there are various criticisms, which have significantly been brought forth against Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’ and of the most frequent it the fact that choice, based on an original position, is often indeterminate. Another criticism is that parties are often deprived of much information regarding themselves, and as such, they can be psychologically incapable of making significant choices, or rather, rational choices. This is owing to the opinion that there is no way parties can make rational choices without having the knowledge on their primary ends, fundamental values, or even commitments. Criticism stresses that parties do not know every significant information about themselves, and this includes their primary purposes, which can aid them in making rational decisions regarding their background on social conditions that are needed in pursuing the primary purposes. For instance, regardless of their ends, they know that security, as well as the absence of various social chaos pose as conditions associated with living a befitting life. Similarly, it is evident that although Rawls parties have no knowledge on their particular personal values, as well as commitments, they are aware that they need adequate share of their primary social goods, in order for them to be able to effectively pursue their purposes. Moreover, they are also aware of their higher-order interests in adequate development and exercise of moral powers, which are the capacities of being rational and reasonable (conditions associated with responsible agency, as well as social cooperation). In this regard, Rawls has a contention that having knowledge of basic social needs is sufficient in making rational choices regarding the principles of justice in the original positions. In resolving this controversy, it is significant for critics to examine various details of the arguments that Rawls presents and as such, be specific where fail has been claimed.

Notably, the ‘veil of ignorance’ is considered a representation of the reasons and information, which are relevant to decisions on principles of justice for the societal structure, which is composed of people, who are free and also moral. Various kinds of reasons, as well as facts are not regarded as morally relevant to such kind of decision, including race, gender and even wealthy, and this is just as many other different types of reasons, as well as facts, which are irrelevant to the ability of mathematicians in working out various formal proofs of given theorems. Notably, as scientists or musicians exercise their skills by ignoring the knowledge that they have regarding certain facts about themselves, it is evident that presumably, any other individual can also do so, in reasoning about various principles of justice. Rawls stresses that any individual can enter into the original position at any given time by just reasoning according to the enumerated restrictions on certain information, and also taking into account, various general facts regarding people, their needs, economic, as well as social cooperation, which are provided to parties.

Putting into consideration, Rawls’ “thick” ‘veil of ignorance,’ it is evident that even in an instance where parties are in a position of making some rational decisions in attaining their interests without having knowledge regarding their final ends, it is clear that they cannot still come to a significant decision regarding principles of justice. Justice consists of the measures, which effectively purpose to promote positive consequences. As such, without knowledge of what is considered to be ultimately good, parties are not in a position of discovering the principles of justice, which promote it. Notably, this criticism has been mirrored in the concept of utilitarianism of a moral viewpoint that incorporates a “thin” ‘veil of ignorance,’ which represents a different opinion regarding impartiality. Evidently, impartial sympathetic spectator or the self-interest rational chooser all entail complete knowledge regarding every individual’s interests, desires, purposes, and even knowledge on specific parts regarding people and their deep historical situations. Notably, impartiality is achieved through depriving impartial observers or even rational choosers of any kind of knowledge of their personal identity. Clearly, this results into equal considerations onto the desires, and interests of every individual and can impartially take into account, every individual’s interests, and desires. Owing to the fact that rationality is assumed to be involving maximization of something or adopting the most effective means of promoting a great realization of someone’s needs, it is evident that an impartial observer or chooser can rationally choose a rule or even a course of action. This can be the latter, or the former, as they minimize the satisfaction of various desires, or even utility that is summed across all individuals.

Conclusion

Based on the provisions above, it is evident that “John Rawls argues that the fairest way to divide rights and resources is to distribute them according to principles that rational people behind a 'veil of ignorance' would agree upon.” This statement has been found to be of great relevance, owing to the fact that the ‘veil of ignorance’ enhances unbiased assessment of justice, especially in social, as well as political institutions, and also of existing preferences, conception of the good, as well as desires. Evidently as provided above, in an instance where parties to the original position of Rawls had significant knowledge regarding their beliefs and desires, and in addition, knowledge of laws, institutions, their societal circumstances, as well as institutions, then the knowledge would purposely influence their decisions, based on principles of justice. As such, the principles that they can agree to, cannot be detached from the desires, institutions and even desires, which the principles are bound to critically assess.

Bibliography

• Appiah, A. (2017). As if: Idealization and ideals. Harvard University Press.
• Buchanan, A. (2017). A critical introduction to Rawls’ theory of justice. In Distributive Justice (pp. 175-211). Routledge.
• Cohen, G. A. (2009). Rescuing justice and equality. Harvard University Press.
• Dworkin, R. (1973). The original position. The University of Chicago Law Review, 40(3), 500-533.
• Freeman, S. (Ed.). (2002). The cambridge companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press.
• Gaus, G. (2019). The tyranny of the ideal: Justice in a diverse society. Princeton University Press.
• Green, R. M. (1986). The Rawls Game: An Introduction to Ethical Theory. Teaching philosophy, 9(1), 51-60.
• Hampton, J. (1980). Contracts and choices: Does Rawls have a social contract theory?. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(6), 315-338.
• Maffettone, S. (2010). Rawls: an introduction. Polity.
• Mandle, J., & Reidy, D. A. (Eds.). (2014). A companion to Rawls. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
• Scanlon, T. M. (2012). Justification and legitimation: Comments on Sebastiano Maffettone’s Rawls: An Introduction. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 38(9), 887-892.
• Wenar, L. (2017). Why Rawls is not a cosmopolitan egalitarian. In Rawls and Law (pp. 499-517). Routledge.