Rawls' veil of ignorance

In 1971, the Harvard philosopher John Rawls published A Theory of Justice. It asks how a society should distribute rights and wealth. His device is the original position: imagine people choosing the principles of justice before they are born into society, behind a veil of ignorance. They do not know their sex, race, class, talents, religion, or even their idea of a good life, nor which generation they will be. They know general facts about psychology and economics. Since any of them might be in the worst position, they must choose rules that are fair to everyone.¹³

Rawls argues that rational people in this position would pick two principles. First, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with the same for others. Second, social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if they are attached to jobs and offices open to all under fair equality of opportunity, and if they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, which is the difference principle. He relies on cautious maximin reasoning, choosing the arrangement whose worst outcome is best, and says that this approach beats utilitarianism, which could sacrifice a minority for the larger total. His method draws on the social contract of Locke and Rousseau and on Kant's idea of persons as free and equal.¹²

Critics responded quickly. Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) defended a minimal state and rejected redistribution, communitarians such as Michael Sandel said Rawls ignored the way community shapes persons, and economist John Harsanyi argued that people behind the veil would maximize average utility. Rawls revised his view in Political Liberalism (1993). The book, about 600 pages, led the revival of political philosophy in English-speaking universities.²³