——the final paper of my UCLA course of PHILOS 6 LEC 1: Introduction to Political Philosophy

1. THE ORIGINAL POSITION According to John Rawls, the parties in the Original Position will be ignorant of certain facts about themselves when deciding upon principles of justice. Which facts are these? Do you agree with Rawls’s list of facts that the parties should be ignorant of? If so, defend Rawls’s position. If you believe that more facts about the parties should be known, which facts are those? Defend your answer.

(defend Rawls’  argument）

Part 1: Introduction

John Rawls’ concept of the original position has been a significant topic of discussion among philosophers concerned with social justice and the allocation of resources. In his work, “A Theory of Justice,”Rawls proposes two principles of justice derived from a hypothetical scenario he calls “the original position.” In this scenario, individuals are placed behind a veil of ignorance, which means they are unaware of their personal backgrounds and circumstances but remain rational and morally equal.

This idea of an ideal society challenges traditional utilitarian and welfare-oriented views, proposing instead a social justice system grounded in fundamental fairness. This approach marks a significant milestone in political philosophy and ethics. Given its profound influence and my strong agreement with the concept, this article aims to discuss and defend the conception of the original position based on my understanding of it.

This paper is structured into five parts: an introduction, explanation of the original position, an analysis of relevant facts, potential criticisms along with corresponding defenses, and a conclusion.

Part 2: Explanation of the Original Position

To understand the concept of the original position, we must start with its purpose: to derive the two principles of justice. As Rawls defines it, the principle of justice is “the object of an original agreement in a suitably defined initial situation” (pg102). In this initial situation, everyone aims to fulfill their desires, but the presence of others makes it impossible to achieve everything they want unilaterally. In other words, it is unrealistic to establish a fair order based solely on one person’s perspective, different people want different things after all. Therefore, the best solution is arguably to achieve as much justice as possible within a balanced society – a balanced and optimized, even if not perfect for everyone society of justice.

The original position can be defined as “a status quo in which any agreements reached are fair. It is a state of affairs in which the parties are equally represented as moral persons and the outcome is not conditioned by arbitrary contingencies or the relative balance of social forces. Thus, justice as fairness is able to use the idea of pure procedural justice from the beginning” (pg104). One could call this a fair playing field, regardless of whether one agrees such a thing can exist or not.

To “nullify the effects of specific contingencies which put men at odds and tempt them to exploit social and natural circumstances to their own advantage,” parties should be placed behind a veil of ignorance, where they are unaware of their personal backgrounds and circumstances. In this way, “no one is in a position to tailor principles to his advantage” (pg121). Therefore, fairness and impartiality in the creation of principles of justice are ensured, as no one can find a principle that is particularly favorable to them.

Part 3: Analysis of the Facts

When Rawls attempts to propose a theory of justice as fairness, he considers a veil of ignorance crucial, so that information about one’s identity and therefore privilege, leverage or lack thereof are not influencing decision-making processes. Ideally, in such an environment, with social elements like race, gender, ethnicity or other life circumstances removed, the focus should be entirely on justice and benefitting everyone in an as fair manner as possible, instead of bestowing advantages on particular groups.

For such a veil of ignorance to be possible, and for people to avoid prioritizing their own social class or group, Rawles argues individuals must be unaware of such positions. The logic, at least in the sense that I interpret it, is that decision makers, when not knowing of and focusing on place in the socioeconomic spectrum, instead only focus on justice and being fair left, as opposed to focusing on maximizing benefits for themselves and their own group.

It’s not just about belonging to inherent groups, but also ignorance of talents and abilities, which if we compare to contemporary terms might be close to ableism, and Rawles argues ignorance of outstanding capabilities and talents make it so individuals are less likely to use ability bestowed advantages to gain preferential treatment, thus making opportunities available to all, including regardless of ability and natural talent. One might argue this means the only value is moral value of a person, as in this sense individuals are stripped of all other values to help ensure fairness.

In the same spirit, to avoid systemic injustices Rawls insists on through ignorance avoiding race, ethnicity and gender, as focus on these characteristics especially for groups already in power are likely to continue to perpetrate social and systemic injustices.

This logic also applies to individual views and perspectives, such as views on happiness, philosophical stances and preferences, as these are by nature relative, and often attached to different groups and their benefits. Here the veil ignorance once again is meant to steer towards selection of principles and views that respect social diversity and promote overall justice.

Part 4: Potential Criticism and Corresponding Defenseior

Potential Criticism:

Rawls’ theory has significantly influenced political philosophy discussions on justice. While its importance is acknowledged, some aspects need further exploration. One critique is that erasing personal circumstances under the veil of ignorance might not be reasonable. Including some basic past experiences could be beneficial. Rawls explains in “A Theory of Justice” that under the veil of ignorance, personal circumstances and life environments are erased. This means individuals are unaware of their past experiences, which are deeply connected to their social status, abilities, and other attributes.Erasing personal experiences can detach discussions from reality. For instance, understanding a baseball game by only knowing basic rules and scores, without prior knowledge, is unrealistic. Similarly, judging without specifics can lead to different conclusions compared to knowing details. Moreover, an individual’s thought process is heavily influenced by their experiences and memories. Expecting decisions without knowledge of experiences is unrealistic. An adult’s opinion can change dramatically over ten years due to experiences. If discussions ignore real-world factors, applying their outcomes and expecting acceptance is unreasonable. Including basic personal memories under the veil might lead to more practical and applicable principles of justice, even if not ideal.

Defense:

While the criticisms raise thoughtful points, many of its suggestions are too absolute and overlook that the veil of ignorance is a theoretical framework, not something literal.

Firstly, applying the veil of ignorance directly to real-world principles is not a requirement of the theory. Rawls mentions that the hypothetical scenario is meant to ensure just outcomes, serving as a basis for the theory. This means laws or mechanisms for social justice can adapt to real needs. The aim is to offer a foundational rule of justice, considering real-world factors once the veil is lifted. Many real-world laws operate on similar principles.Secondly, some ignorance of details can be beneficial, making decisions more objective. For example, in the baseball game analogy, focusing on standout moments might overshadow consistent performance. Ignoring details helps ensure a broader, more equitable perspective, even if it doesn’t follow principles of ignorance 100%.Furthermore, the baseball game example has flaws. Rawls’ proposition involves people directly affected by the outcomes, not bystanders. Psychologically, outsiders would likely not care as much as the players. Additionally, Rawls’ reference on page 119 does not imply these are the only factors considered. Even if used, the judgment should focus on establishing fair principles rather than individual benefits, a nuance missed in the criticism.If nothing else, the veil of ignorance can be seen as an ideal to strive towards. Criticizing an ideal for being unachievable is like criticizing all ideals. The goal is not for the principles to be perfectly achieved but rather always strived towards, so humanity might become increasingly just – at least this is my interpretation and defense.

Part 5: Conclusion

The concept of the original position created by Rawls in “A Theory of Justice” offers a groundbreaking framework for understanding justice. In this paper, I explained the hypothetical scenario of the original position, detailing each element under the veil of ignorance. Following this, I raised a criticism regarding its realism and subsequently defended it by providing deeper explanations and highlighting flaws in the criticism. I believe this paper provides a deeper interpretation of Rawls’ theory and serves as a reference for discussions on social justice. Future discussions could focus on analyzing the practical aspects of Rawls’ original position.

Reference come from John Rawls’ <A Theory of Justice> revised edition, published in 1971 by Harvard University Press.  ISBN 0-674-00077-3(cloth: alk. paper). —ISBN 0-674-00078-1 (paper : alk. paper)