John Rawls Veil Of Ignorance

I agree with John Rawls that creating a hypothetical contract behind a “veil of ignorance” is the ideal way of viewing justice. First, Rawls argues that this method creates “principles of justice untainted by differences of bargaining power or knowledge” (203). To clarify why I also believe this is the correct position to take, I will define what Rawls means by a “veil of ignorance.” He explains this term saying, “[Parties] do not know how the various alternatives will affect their own particular case and they are obliged to evaluate principles solely on the basis of general consideration” (219). This means that each individual is unaware of “his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength and the like” (205).
As Rawls points out, one possible counterargument to the notion of the “veil of ignorance” is that all relevant and available information should be used in considering the principles of justice. However, Rawls disproves this idea by explaining that the “veil of ignorance” allows for the principles to be consistent and universal across time and do not need to be altered with new information (220). Lastly, I would agree that the “veil of ignorance” is a compelling way to think about justice because it allows for unanimous agreement on principles, which leads to an efficient decision process with the result being fairness for