Philosophy
If possible, use as source Author: Lewis Vaughn
- Explain Rawls’ “original position” and “veil of ignorance.” Explain how the two principles of justice he thinks would emerge from his thought experiment.
Explain Rawls’ “original position” and “veil of ignorance.” Explain how the two principles of justice he thinks would emerge from his thought experiment.
Introduction
There are really two parts to Rawls’ original position: the first is a thought experiment that he uses to justify his belief that there are certain principles of justice which would, if people were allowed to devise them all on their own, emerge from their deliberations. But once they’re done designing these principles and come up with a set of rules they can live by (Rawls calls these “maxims”), those maxims need to be applied fairly across all people. This leads us back into the second part of Rawls’ original position…
Rawls’ original position is like a political version of the hypothetical situation that Hume and other empiricists used to justify inductive reasoning.
Rawls’ original position is like a political version of the hypothetical situation that Hume and other empiricists used to justify inductive reasoning. In this case, we are assuming that in certain hypothetical situations the human mind is compelled to reason in a certain way: namely, by trying to determine what would be best for all people involved. This sounds reasonable enough—inductive reasoning is based on the idea that in certain hypothetical situations the human mind is compelled to reason in a certain way and therefore we can use it as an objective standard for determining truth or falsity. However, as philosopher Barry Chisholm points out:
In fact if we examine closely what these principles say they should produce they don’t exactly follow from them either [Rawls] gives us some interesting insights into why he thinks his two principles would emerge from his thought experiment but these insights do not seem relevant here since they were never meant to apply outside of their original context so much less when applied directly against each other…
The basic idea is that in certain hypothetical situations the human mind is compelled to reason in a certain way, and moreover this method of reasoning can be trusted to produce more-or-less reliable results.
Rawls starts with a simple question: what would happen if you were to step into an “original position,” where your preferences and beliefs are unknown? You will assume that all people are equal, but some have more wealth than others. You also assume that each person has an equal chance of being born into the society as you are now—that is, there is no difference in wealth between individuals born into this society.
You then must decide how to distribute wealth among yourselves (the “veil of ignorance”). The basic idea behind this veil is that in certain hypothetical situations the human mind is compelled to reason in a certain way, and moreover this method of reasoning can be trusted to produce more-or-less reliable results. If we had perfect knowledge about our future selves as well as perfect knowledge about whether or not we’d ever come into contact with another person who could potentially share their personal beliefs with us during our lifetimes together under these same circumstances (such as having lived through WWII), then perhaps one might argue for using some sort of egalitarian distribution plan instead; however since we’re dealing only with hypothetical situations here — where everyone knows nothing about their own future circumstances whatsoever — it seems safer simply to stick closer toward Lockean principles which promote equality rather than slightly higher standards like those highlighted by Rousseau’s writings.”
In Hume’s case it was about induction, but for Rawls it’s about choosing a set of basic principles for society.
In Hume’s case it was about induction, but for Rawls it’s about choosing a set of basic principles for society. He thought that the principles chosen in his hypothetical reasoning would be just and fair.
In Hume’s hypothetical reasoning, he said “I never can find out” who is right or wrong because they all have an equal chance to be right or wrong (even though they’re not). So you can’t compare your good actions with someone else’s bad actions; they’re both equally valid as choices made by each person individually—they both deserve being called “good.” This kind of thinking would lead us down a path where no one ever has any reason to feel bad about themselves at all because there will always be another choice available if something went wrong with our choice today!
Rawls proposed that we imagine a kind of pre-social state where people didn’t know anything about their future positions in society.
Rawls proposed that we imagine a kind of pre-social state where people didn’t know anything about their future positions in society. They would choose principles that would work regardless of what their situation turned out to be, because they had no way of knowing what it would be like until after they were born.
The thought experiment is similar to Hume’s hypothetical situation, in which two people meet at random on an island without any specific knowledge about each other’s character or abilities and try to create together a social contract for themselves (Hume 1738).
They don’t know if they’ll be rich or poor, healthy or sick, male or female etc.
The hypothetical situation of Rawls’s thought experiment is like a political version of the hypothetical situation that Hume and other empiricists used to justify inductive reasoning. They don’t know if they’ll be rich or poor, healthy or sick, male or female etc. In this sense it’s similar to an experiment in which we ask people whether they would accept an outcome (such as a lottery) where their wealth depends on some randomly determined factor (for example winning the lottery). When asked about this kind of outcome, most people say no because it would seem unfair for someone who has been lucky all his life to suddenly have everything taken away from him due to bad luck at some point in time.
Rawls’ thought experiment follows from this idea: given what we know about human beings’ tendency towards injustice when presented with facts related to inequality (like the fact that wealth tends not only reflect ability but also luck), how do we ensure that justice prevails between individuals?
Their job is to design a social contract for themselves that would ensure a just distribution of resources in any future situation they find themselves in, good or bad.
The original position is a political version of the hypothetical situation that Hume and other empiricists used to justify inductive reasoning. It is like a thought experiment in which two people, who do not know each other’s identity or social status, are asked how they would design a social contract for themselves if they were starting from scratch.
Rawls argues that this hypothetical situation should be taken as an answerable question: What principles do we want our society to follow? These principles can then be used to construct legal systems that ensure justice between all parties involved (including citizens).
They won’t know which one applies to them when they wake up…
Rawls thought that people would be motivated to design a system that would treat them fairly no matter what their situation was. This is because he believed that the principles of justice they would come up with would be general enough to apply to everyone.
The veil of ignorance is another way of saying “you don’t know anything about your individual characteristics or circumstances.” It’s also known as “the blank slate,” since it assumes everyone starts with an empty slate of information (no race, gender, religion etc.) and then makes decisions based on how they want their society run rather than what their background says they should do or not do.
They are forced to adopt principles that would work regardless of what their situation turns out to be
Rawls believed that the majority of people would choose to protect the least well off, regardless of their own situation. They would do this because they recognize that it is better for society as a whole to have wealth spread evenly among all members than to allow some people to become rich while others remain poor. They also believe in equal rights for everyone (including minorities) and therefore want equal protection under law.
In addition, Rawls thought that people could not decide on behalf of themselves alone; rather, they must make decisions based on what his “original position” would look like if we were placed in it without knowing anything about ourselves or our background. For example: If one person were born into an extremely wealthy family where he had access to everything money could buy (including servants), how would he choose between competing interests? Would he choose himself over anyone else at all? Or perhaps take care only about himself until age 25 when he decided whether any children should be raised by him or by someone else?
Rawls’ theory suggests that we cannot expect people who don’t know anything about themselves or their background prior to making decisions about justice under such circumstances; rather than choosing themselves over others – especially those who need assistance most – we may end up choosing ourselves over them instead.”
Conclusion
The idea is that they would be able to choose principles that are consistent with the way their mind works, and this would give them equal chances at success. The important thing here is not whether or not Rawls’ thought experiment is accurate; it’s more important to understand what he’s trying to say about how reason works in our lives. He says we make decisions based on principles that are already in place for us before we’re born, but there are times when we need fresh insight into these principles so as not become too dogmatic about them; hence why “veil of ignorance” experiments like Rawls’ original position are necessary!