What is Rawls's veil of ignorance?
It is a thought experiment in which people choose principles of justice without knowing who they are in society, so that the choice is impartial and fair.
AI-drafted from web search results, then checked by a second, independent AI that read 3 of its 4 cited pages in full and found the thread supported. No person has reviewed it.
The short answer
The veil of ignorance is the central feature of the original position, a device in John Rawls's theory of justice as fairness, set out in A Theory of Justice. Imagine people choosing the basic principles of justice for their society while deprived of knowledge about themselves. They do not know their place in society, their wealth, their race or gender, or their talents. Because no one can tailor the rules to their own advantage, the principles they agree on are meant to be fair. [1] [2]
What the parties do not know
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the parties do not know their class position, social status, race, gender, level of intelligence, strength or education. Rawls even removes knowledge of their values, religious or philosophical convictions and special psychological traits. The veil also hides facts about their society and its history, such as its wealth, resources and religious institutions, and the generation to which they belong. [1] [3]
The parties are also kept ignorant of the society's political system, class structure, economic system and level of development. [3]
What the parties do know
The veil is not total. The parties know general facts about people and societies, including generally accepted findings in economics, psychology, political science and biology. They know that society is marked by moderate scarcity and limited altruism, that citizens hold differing views of the good life, and that everyone wants more of the primary social goods. They also know that those they represent have some conception of the good, though not what it is. [1] [4]
Why Rawls designed it this way
Rawls aimed to describe an agreement situation that is fair to all parties. He assumed that if the parties are fairly situated, the principles they choose inherit that fairness, as do the laws and institutions those principles require. In his view, particular and historical facts are morally irrelevant and potentially prejudicial when choosing universal standards of justice. [1]
A second reason is equality. The veil places the parties in a strictly symmetrical position and represents them only as free and equal moral persons. The Stanford entry describes this as an interpretation of the Kantian idea of equal respect for moral persons. [1]
Sources
- Original Position (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (plato.stanford.edu) Found by source search. Not checked by a person.
- Veil of Ignorance - Ethics Unwrapped (ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu) Found by source search. Not checked by a person.
- John Rawls (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (plato.stanford.edu) Found by source search. Not checked by a person.
- Veil of Ignorance in Rawlsian Theory (facultystaff.richmond.edu) Found by source search. Not checked by a person.
Questions to follow next
- What principles of justice did Rawls say people would choose behind the veil?
- How do critics respond to the original position?
- How does the veil of ignorance differ from a traditional state of nature?