The Veil Of Ignorance: John Rawls Conception Of Justice
Is the hypothetical contract behind a veil of ignorance a convincing way of understanding justice? John Rawls uses this idea as a procedure for devising the most preferable principles of justice that would allow for the harmonious coexistence of the diverse competing interests in the society. He conceives justice as fairness and views the society as a fair system of cooperation amongst individuals who are presumably free and equal (Sandel, 2007, p. 113). In such as setup, justice is the outcome of political negotiations as opposed to being the work of some moral impulses or metaphysical intuition. As a political process, the members of a society must accept the agreed principles of justice as being fair through democratic processes such as representation.
Rawls’ conception of justice is largely hypothetical and hardly simulates a real life scenario. He assumes that the development of principles that are both fair and reflective of the actual justice is only possible if stripped of egoistic tendencies and done behind the veil of ignorance. Therefore, such an exercise calls for or requires procedures that are not only pure, but also not contaminated by hazardous arbitrariness …show more content…
inherent in many comprehensive moral doctrines such as religion, political theories, which on many occasions only serve to propagate sectarian interests. According to Rawls, a society is capable of attaining universally acceptable and binding principles of justice on everyone within it only if those called upon to negotiate on behalf of others in the society assume themselves in original positions (Sandel, 2009, p. 126). In the original position, the negotiators must be able to establish the suitability of the agreed principles of justice by taking into consideration, in entirety, the particular circumstances of the parties in terms of their values, beliefs and knowledge, among others in the light of the available alternatives.
John Rawls in this regard points out that in the state of the original position, no party cannot and must not necessarily get all that one wants. He recognizes the existences of many options in the understanding of justice afforded by various doctrines. However, he emphasizes that the contracting parties struggle to strike a compromise in which case they believe that what is best for all of them is for the outcome to be the result of their joint concerted efforts (Sandel, 2007. p.
120).
Contracting behind the veil of ignorance is merely hypothetical of the desired outcome. This is because the contracting parties are not only assumed to be in a state of the status quo, but are relatively or are equally placed in the natural circumstances of life and have a similar moral capacity to yield an outcome that is fair to all. In such a scenario, the contracting parties are presumably oblivious of their true situation or place in life. This presumption is meant to preserve the status and removes any such contingencies that may put the contracting parties at odds with each other, giving any or one of them the head start to negatively exploit their social, economic, political and such other natural endowment to the disadvantage of the rest.
In the state of oblivion, no contracting party is aware of the impacts the available alternatives may have on their wellbeing: the only guiding factor in their general considerations of life. Therefore, in doing so Rawls assumed that the contracting parties are not privy to certain truths. Neither do they know their class, social status, and place in the society, nor do they know their share in the scheme of distribution of benefits and allocation of burdens. In addition, such parties do not recognize any sense of good and have no foresight for their plans. Nor, again are they psychologically disposed to conceive of optimism or pessimism and can hardly tell of the social, political and economic advantages and disadvantages associated with the scheme or procedure they find themselves in until after the consequences of their negotiations start taking effect upon the lives of those on whose behalf they contract (Sandel, 2009, p. 130).
In order to make sense, negotiating behind the veil should not make it possible for the contracting parties to discern of their generation. These limitations on the knowledge of the contracting parties is necessary for the preservation of the status quo and eliminate the effects of social, economic and political disparities that exist amongst the members of a society both among themselves and between their generations, from one to another. Consequently, concerns about social justice are settled and differences in the endowment of natural resources are not allowed to blur the vision of the contracting parties. This means that the contracting parties must be ready to live with the impacts of the negotiated principles unaffected by or generational differences notwithstanding. That said, the only facts the contracting parties are permitted to know is that their society must be governed and guided by the principles of justice (Sandel, 2009, p. 133).
Being that the contracting parties operate behind the veil of ignorance and are restricted in knowledge, they are neither able to conceive of the social, economic and political repercussions of the agreed principles nor have the foresight of the likely impacts due changes in the society. Therefore, their knowledge of the general human conditions becomes the only means and information available to enable them to make choices of the principles of justice. The information available concerns the laws, philosophies and theories that have been developed by a society in an attempt to get the best and probably the most preferable principles of justice (Sandel, 2007, p. 117). Contracting behind the veil of ignorance is fraught with many challenges. The most important of these is the limitation on the knowledge of the contracting parties. Contracting parties are prevented from knowing certain information, which would otherwise be vital and informative to their undertaking in formulating the principles of justice. It is simply inconceivable how those contracting behind the veil of ignorance and are excluded from accessing particular facts are capable of formulating fair principles of justice and reason about their likely impacts without seeking recourse to the already existing human experiences in a society. This limitation renders human assumptions of purity, associated with the original position, dubious and logically untenable. It is damnably difficult to understand what John Rawls actually means by the concept of the original position (Sandel, 2009, p. 134).
The comparison that Rawls draws between the original position and market realities with regard to the development of the equilibrium price does very little to make it any easier for any reader to understand what Rawls’ concept of original position really means or whether contracting behind the veil of ignorance is the best way to understand the concept of justice. Information plays a pivotal role in the decision-making process and, hence, people cannot gainsay the importance of the parties’ knowledge of the same (Sandel, 2007, p. 139).
In other words, the ability of an individual to access information about a particular state of affairs has a direct bearing on the choices he or she makes with regard to that situation. For example, in a market place, the price negotiations amongst traders bases fundamentally on the existing information. That is, the contracting parties advance their interests based on the awareness of the prevailing micro and macro-economic factors such as the cost of production and the expected profit margins, among others (Sandel, 2009, p. 126-27). Thus, as much as the ultimate or the equilibrium price is normally the outcome of demand and supply, the reality, nevertheless, is that traders’ prior knowledge is what shapes these market forces. Thus, the utilitarian theories hold in this regard that, as opposed to rely on extremely idealistic notions of justice, such as the one fronted by Rawls, the most appropriate principle should be that which yields maximum results for the greatest number of people in a society (Sandel, 2007, p. 129).
Contrary to the foregoing however, it is vital to note that for individuals in the original positions to successfully contract behind the veil of ignorance and formulate acceptable principles of justice, they must not be assumed real people living within a specific time span. To do so would deprive the original position of its features as a natural guide. Contracting parties are hypothetical persons who must be available at all time and not subject to those limitations, which ordinarily affect human life. Therefore, the logic behind restricting contracting parties’ knowledge is to guarantee the information of timeless relevance and can be relied upon from time to time and from one generation to another.
Furthermore, whereas it is understandable why a person may insist on choosing the principles of justice basing on the knowledge of the information available, it is important to consider that if the parties are unaware of the differences amongst them, it becomes easier advancing a common ground. The benefit here is that everyone is considered rational and equal in both the basic liberties, freedoms and rights and this leads to two broad classes of the principles of justice that the parties contracting behind the veil must yield.
Rawls’ conception of justice is largely hypothetical and hardly simulates a real life scenario. He assumes that the development of principles that are both fair and reflective of the actual justice is only possible if stripped of egoistic tendencies and done behind the veil of ignorance. Therefore, such an exercise calls for or requires procedures that are not only pure, but also not contaminated by hazardous arbitrariness …show more content…
inherent in many comprehensive moral doctrines such as religion, political theories, which on many occasions only serve to propagate sectarian interests. According to Rawls, a society is capable of attaining universally acceptable and binding principles of justice on everyone within it only if those called upon to negotiate on behalf of others in the society assume themselves in original positions (Sandel, 2009, p. 126). In the original position, the negotiators must be able to establish the suitability of the agreed principles of justice by taking into consideration, in entirety, the particular circumstances of the parties in terms of their values, beliefs and knowledge, among others in the light of the available alternatives.
John Rawls in this regard points out that in the state of the original position, no party cannot and must not necessarily get all that one wants. He recognizes the existences of many options in the understanding of justice afforded by various doctrines. However, he emphasizes that the contracting parties struggle to strike a compromise in which case they believe that what is best for all of them is for the outcome to be the result of their joint concerted efforts (Sandel, 2007. p.
120).
Contracting behind the veil of ignorance is merely hypothetical of the desired outcome. This is because the contracting parties are not only assumed to be in a state of the status quo, but are relatively or are equally placed in the natural circumstances of life and have a similar moral capacity to yield an outcome that is fair to all. In such a scenario, the contracting parties are presumably oblivious of their true situation or place in life. This presumption is meant to preserve the status and removes any such contingencies that may put the contracting parties at odds with each other, giving any or one of them the head start to negatively exploit their social, economic, political and such other natural endowment to the disadvantage of the rest.
In the state of oblivion, no contracting party is aware of the impacts the available alternatives may have on their wellbeing: the only guiding factor in their general considerations of life. Therefore, in doing so Rawls assumed that the contracting parties are not privy to certain truths. Neither do they know their class, social status, and place in the society, nor do they know their share in the scheme of distribution of benefits and allocation of burdens. In addition, such parties do not recognize any sense of good and have no foresight for their plans. Nor, again are they psychologically disposed to conceive of optimism or pessimism and can hardly tell of the social, political and economic advantages and disadvantages associated with the scheme or procedure they find themselves in until after the consequences of their negotiations start taking effect upon the lives of those on whose behalf they contract (Sandel, 2009, p. 130).
In order to make sense, negotiating behind the veil should not make it possible for the contracting parties to discern of their generation. These limitations on the knowledge of the contracting parties is necessary for the preservation of the status quo and eliminate the effects of social, economic and political disparities that exist amongst the members of a society both among themselves and between their generations, from one to another. Consequently, concerns about social justice are settled and differences in the endowment of natural resources are not allowed to blur the vision of the contracting parties. This means that the contracting parties must be ready to live with the impacts of the negotiated principles unaffected by or generational differences notwithstanding. That said, the only facts the contracting parties are permitted to know is that their society must be governed and guided by the principles of justice (Sandel, 2009, p. 133).
Being that the contracting parties operate behind the veil of ignorance and are restricted in knowledge, they are neither able to conceive of the social, economic and political repercussions of the agreed principles nor have the foresight of the likely impacts due changes in the society. Therefore, their knowledge of the general human conditions becomes the only means and information available to enable them to make choices of the principles of justice. The information available concerns the laws, philosophies and theories that have been developed by a society in an attempt to get the best and probably the most preferable principles of justice (Sandel, 2007, p. 117). Contracting behind the veil of ignorance is fraught with many challenges. The most important of these is the limitation on the knowledge of the contracting parties. Contracting parties are prevented from knowing certain information, which would otherwise be vital and informative to their undertaking in formulating the principles of justice. It is simply inconceivable how those contracting behind the veil of ignorance and are excluded from accessing particular facts are capable of formulating fair principles of justice and reason about their likely impacts without seeking recourse to the already existing human experiences in a society. This limitation renders human assumptions of purity, associated with the original position, dubious and logically untenable. It is damnably difficult to understand what John Rawls actually means by the concept of the original position (Sandel, 2009, p. 134).
The comparison that Rawls draws between the original position and market realities with regard to the development of the equilibrium price does very little to make it any easier for any reader to understand what Rawls’ concept of original position really means or whether contracting behind the veil of ignorance is the best way to understand the concept of justice. Information plays a pivotal role in the decision-making process and, hence, people cannot gainsay the importance of the parties’ knowledge of the same (Sandel, 2007, p. 139).
In other words, the ability of an individual to access information about a particular state of affairs has a direct bearing on the choices he or she makes with regard to that situation. For example, in a market place, the price negotiations amongst traders bases fundamentally on the existing information. That is, the contracting parties advance their interests based on the awareness of the prevailing micro and macro-economic factors such as the cost of production and the expected profit margins, among others (Sandel, 2009, p. 126-27). Thus, as much as the ultimate or the equilibrium price is normally the outcome of demand and supply, the reality, nevertheless, is that traders’ prior knowledge is what shapes these market forces. Thus, the utilitarian theories hold in this regard that, as opposed to rely on extremely idealistic notions of justice, such as the one fronted by Rawls, the most appropriate principle should be that which yields maximum results for the greatest number of people in a society (Sandel, 2007, p. 129).
Contrary to the foregoing however, it is vital to note that for individuals in the original positions to successfully contract behind the veil of ignorance and formulate acceptable principles of justice, they must not be assumed real people living within a specific time span. To do so would deprive the original position of its features as a natural guide. Contracting parties are hypothetical persons who must be available at all time and not subject to those limitations, which ordinarily affect human life. Therefore, the logic behind restricting contracting parties’ knowledge is to guarantee the information of timeless relevance and can be relied upon from time to time and from one generation to another.
Furthermore, whereas it is understandable why a person may insist on choosing the principles of justice basing on the knowledge of the information available, it is important to consider that if the parties are unaware of the differences amongst them, it becomes easier advancing a common ground. The benefit here is that everyone is considered rational and equal in both the basic liberties, freedoms and rights and this leads to two broad classes of the principles of justice that the parties contracting behind the veil must yield.