Veil Of Ignorance Analysis

Rawls is a Liberal who gained much of theory from the philosopher Kant. His original position heavily relies on the ideas he proposes in the Veil of Ignorance. MacIntrye and Sandel are heavily skeptical of his ideas, but it can’t be argued that Rawl’s ideas are heavily relevant to his ideas of Liberalism and that he needs these ideas to stand to be able to support his position.
Before it is discussed further, it is important to state that the Veil of ignorance’s ideation relies on the fundamental belief that people are free and rational. It is drawn from ideas of Kant who is an early liberalist that often can be connected to Rawls. The veil is the idea of taking policy makers and taking away any knowledge of themselves so that they would make informed policies. The idea itself is mearly a thought expiriemtnt and can’t hold completely true but it is a recpmmendation for policies in order to allow each person to be free
or at least more free.
Rawls wants to the chance of someone getting drawn from the lottery of life better than what is expierieneced at the moment. No one wants to be the worst off, but through the veil one would feel better about getting that pick it was much more equalized. It also wants social mobility and that chance for choice to be able to affect one rather than just luck or family standing. Rawls wants the worst to be lifted farther than they are now and though the conscious thought of policy makers that must be good enough.
MacIntyre states that one can’t understand others until they understand themselves and their own narrative. If one was to depersonalize themselves that much, they would lack the qualifications to make decisions for the masses. An example that was briefly mentioned is how groups identify themselves in obosition to others. The Germans had to serperate themselves form facist ideas in order to create a sense of identity. They are not this or not that which is culturally very common across the board.
Sandel critiques Rawls through his own ideas of communitarianism. He states that obligations will always get in the way. An example he especially talks about is Grant during the civil war who was firmly on the unions side until his home of Virginia was threatened. Obligations and duty especially to one’s community heavily affects the decisions and actions that the person would make. Sandels argument hits hard when considering a persons freedom and rationality which is a huge part of Rawls basis for his argument.
In response to MacIntryres argument, I believe that Rawls would argue that MacIntyre is existing in more of the narrative of society rather than allowing people to be free and choose their own paths.
To have a set path to follow allows for such little freedom and will cause strain to a system as people will want some mobility. The poorest of the poor will want a way to move rather than what is set out for them.
To address Sandel, I feel like Rawls would respond that even in instances of obligation one can manipulate it in a way to suit their needs. Free and rational thinking are a huge part of Rawl’s position. Without these ideas he lacks a firm foundation for his ideas, so one has often to make choices that are best for a group, but has to still consider the alternative.
In conclusion, Rawls’ idea of the Veil of Ignorance is an interesting one. It has faults which are heavily looked at by MacIntyre and Sandel, but it is still a substantial building ground for Rawl’s ideas. It is relevant to his position and still creates and adds character to
it.