The Original Position;
The Veil of Ignorance, is a thought experiment developed by American philosopher John Rawls to discover the principles that should structure a society of free, equal and moral people.
Rawls claims that his Principles of Justice would be chosen by parties in the original position.
…Rawls specifies that the parties in the original position are concerned only with citizens' share of what he calls primary social goods, which include basic rights as well as economic and social advantages. Rawls also argues that the representatives in the original position would adopt the maximin rule as their principle for evaluating the choices before them. Borrowed from game theory, maximin stands for maximizing the minimum, i.e., making the choice that produces the highest payoff for the least advantaged position. Thus, maximin in the original position represents a formulation of social equality.
The social contract, citizens in a state of nature contract with each other to establish a state of civil society. For example, in the Lockean state of nature, the parties agree to establish a civil society in which the government has limited powers and the duty to protect the persons and property of citizens. In the original position, the representative parties select principles of justice that are to govern the basic structure of society. Rawls argues that the representative parties in the original position would select two principles of justice:
1. Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others;
2. Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:
- to the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged (the difference principle);
- attached to positions and offices
open to all.
The reason that the least well off member gets benefited is that it is argued that under the veil of ignorance people will act as if they were risk-averse. The original position is a unique and irrevocable choice about all the most important social goods, and they do not know the probability they will become any particular member of society. As insurance against the worst possible outcome, they will pick rules that maximize the benefits given to the minimum outcome (maximin)…
The Veil Of Ignorance
What is the best way to organize society if you don't know which role you will end up playing in it?
Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new constitution or social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them.
Imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance . Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings.
You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.
If a person does not know; their class position or social status, their natural talents, abilities, intelligence or strength, and what their plan for a good life is then any decisions about the arrangement of society may or may not effect the unknown role he or she might become.
A practice is just only if it is in accordance with the principles all who participate in it might reasonably be expected to propose or to acknowledge before one another when they are similarly circumstanced.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
Let us suppose that the framers of the social contract wanted to devise the fairest state they could. How would they go about it?
One way of answering this question is to think of an analogous situation - the creation of a new game, for instance. In such a situation, the people involved should adopt rules that everyone is willing to accept. Moreover, if the game is to be fair, the choice of rules must not be determined by one person's knowledge of how the rules will affect her chances of winning. If one person knows in advance which rules will benefit her, and if she has the power to get others to agree to those rules, the result will be unfairly biased in her favor. That is the problem, Rawls feels, with Locke's version of the social contract. Although the people who draw up the social contract are supposed to be equal, they are not. Some begin wealthy, others poor. Some have great power, others none. The minimal state is stacked in favor of the rich and powerful and against the poor and weak.
Suppose, however, that they approached the social contract as they would the creation of a fair game. If they did that;
- They would have to approach it from behind what Rawls calls a veil of ignorance.
- They would have to be ignorant of;
- who would have what goods,
- who would wield what power,
- who would have what position in the new state.
- They would have to devise it in such a way that they would be willing to accept whatever position they would end up with.
Two Principles of Justice
What would the outcome of such a contract be? Rawls claims that the devisers of the contract would agree on the following two principles of justice.
- The first principle is the (equality principle). It says that every person has a right to the greatest basic freedom compatible with similar freedom for all. This principle includes two requirements. First, there must be equal freedom for everybody. Second, if the extent of freedom can be increased without violating the first requirement, it must be increased.
- The second principle is the (difference principle). It says that all social and economic inequalities must be arranged in accordance with two considerations. First, these inequalities must be to everyone's advantage, including the people on the bottom of the scale. Second, they must be attached to positions that are open to all.
The basic freedoms of the first principle parallel Locke's natural rights, and are roughly the freedoms listed in our own Constitution and Bill of Rights-political freedom, property rights, freedom of speech, thought, religion, assembly, and so forth. What distinguishes Rawls from Locke and Nozick here is not the freedoms, but the way of arriving at them. For Rawls, they arise from mutual agreement. For Locke and Nozick, they are prior constraints on any agreement that might be rightfully reached.
The inequalities of the second principle are the sort that exist between a physician, say, and an unskilled worker. The physician receives greater pay than the unskilled worker, enjoys greater prestige, and reaps the benefits that go along with both. We can justify such inequalities this way. Everyone, including the unskilled worker, benefits if there are enough physicians to serve all. But to ensure that enough people will put up with the long rigors of medical school, some additional benefits must be given them. Therefore, the inequalities are advantageous to all. Moreover, as long as all qualified people are given an equal chance to become physicians, these additional benefits will be available to those who deserve and want them.
But what if the inequalities are too great? What if they are larger than required to benefit everyone? In our own society, we try to solve such problems through a progressive tax system and transfer payments to the poor. We tax a higher percentage of the income of the rich, and we attempt to improve the lot of the poor through food stamps and other welfare programs. (Whether these measures are acceptable, inadequate, or too far-reaching is, of course, a matter of national debate.)
What if access to the more heavily rewarded positions is not open to all? What if blacks and women, for example, are excluded from the high-paying professions? In our own society, we try to solve such problems through civil rights legislation. (Once again, whether these measures are acceptable, inadequate, or too far-reaching is a matter of national debate.)
Why would we select such principles from behind the veil of ignorance? The answer is simple. If we did not know whether we would be the ones with limited freedom, and if we did not know whether we would be the ones exploited by the rich, and if we did not know whether we would be the ones denied equal opportunity, we would certainly not accept a system in which such people would exist. It would be like accepting a rigged game without knowing whether it would be rigged in our favor or our opponents'.
Persons and Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy
-by Jeffrey Olen
https://www.amazon.com/Persons-Their-World-Introduction-Philosophy/dp/0075543117
