John Rawls' Theory of Justice

If people were simply asked to choose the kind of society in which they would like to live, they are likely to choose one in which the rules and organisation of society allot them a privileged position. We cannot really expect everyone to set aside their own personal interests and think only of the good of society as a whole — especially since they may believe that their decision will affect the kind of life and opportunities their own children will have in future. We often expect parents to think of, and support, what is best for their own children — but such natural perspectives cannot, by themselves, form the basis of a theory of justice for society as a whole. So how, then, do we actually reach a decision that would be both fair and just?

The political philosopher John Rawls tried to answer exactly this question. He argues that the only way we can arrive at a fair and just rule is if we imagine ourselves to be in a situation in which we have to make decisions about how society should be organised, without knowing which position we would ourselves occupy in that society. That is, we would not know what kind of family we would be born into — whether we would be born into an 'upper' caste or 'lower' caste family, rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged. Rawls argues that if we do not know, in this sense, who we will be and what options will be available to us in the future society, we are likely to end up supporting a decision about the rules and organisation of that future society that would be fair to all its members.

Rawls describes this way of thinking as reasoning under a 'veil of ignorance.' He expects that, in such a situation of complete ignorance about our own possible position and status in society, each person would still decide in the way people generally do — that is, in terms of their own interest. But because no one knows who they would turn out to be, each person, purely to protect their own interest, would end up envisaging the future society from the point of view of the worst-off. It will be clear to a person who can reason for themselves that those who are born privileged will enjoy certain special opportunities regardless of the rules chosen. But what if they themselves have the misfortune of being born into a disadvantaged section of society, where very few opportunities would be available to them? Given this real possibility, it would make sense for each person, acting purely in their own self-interest, to try and think of rules of organisation that would ensure reasonable opportunities to the weaker sections of society. The attempt, in other words, would be to see that important resources — like education, health, and shelter — are made available to all persons, and not merely to those who belong to the upper class.

Rawls readily admits that it is not easy, in practice, to actually set aside our own identities and imagine ourselves reasoning under a veil of ignorance. It is equally difficult to expect most people to be self-sacrificing, and to willingly share their good fortune with complete strangers — which is precisely why we habitually associate acts of self-sacrifice with heroism. Given these ordinary human limitations, Rawls suggests, it is better for us to think of a framework for justice that does not actually require extraordinary or heroic actions from people. The real merit of the 'veil of ignorance' approach is that it expects people to simply behave as their usual rational selves: to think for themselves, and to choose whatever they judge to be in their own interest. What matters, however, is that under the veil of ignorance, people will find that it is actually in their own rational interest to think from the position of the person who is worst-off.

Wearing the imagined veil of ignorance is described as only the first step towards arriving at a fair system of laws and policies. It will become evident that rational persons will not only see things from the perspective of the worst-off, but will also try to ensure that the policies they frame benefit society as a whole — both of these things have to go hand-in-hand. Since no one knows in advance what position they will occupy in the future society, each person will seek rules that would protect them in case they happen to be born among the worst-off. But it would also make sense for them to try to ensure that their chosen policy does not harm those who are relatively better-off, since it is equally possible that they could themselves be born into a privileged position. It would therefore be in the interest of all that society as a whole should benefit from the rules and policies that are decided, and not merely one particular section of it. Such fairness, Rawls argues, would be the outcome of rational action on the part of each individual, and not of benevolence or generosity. …