John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice proposes that society should be constructed politically under the assumption of a veil of ignorance. In other words, societal rules and principles should be established without any knowledge of our future wealth, talents, and social status. Additionally, we should consider the possibility of being placed in any other person’s position within society (Velasquez, 2008). Rawls argues that this approach will result in a system of “justice as fairness” since our lack of self-awareness prevents us from creating a society that benefits ourselves at the expense of others. To illustrate his theory, Rawls has devised the original position as a hypothetical social contract (Freeman, 2012).
The lack of a well-ordered society on which Rawls’ theory of justice and the veil of ignorance is based renders it flawed and implausible. In today’s world, implementing Rawls’ theory effectively faces challenges due to political, economic, and sociological factors. While Rawls argues that the veil of ignorance promotes equality within society, not knowing individuals’ characteristics, talents, and socioeconomic status raises concerns about how benefits and burdens are distributed fairly. The veil of ignorance disregards merit or talent, resulting in unfairness and injustice among parties. Additionally, opposing utilitarianism, Rawls’ principles advocate for equal distribution of services, property, and benefits potentially compromising overall societal wellbeing. This raises the question as to why a society should be restricted from maximizing its collective welfare; suggesting that having more good rather than less may be preferable.
In order to begin, it is crucial to grasp Rawls’ viewpoint on justice and the veil of ignorance. Velasquez (2008) explains that Rawls defines equality as each person receiving equal distributions of both the advantages and disadvantages within a fair society. This principle is known as strict egalitarianism.
Rawls argues that justice necessitates an equal distribution of resources among society’s members. He presents a just system where decisions regarding the allocation of benefits and burdens are made without any knowledge of one’s personal circumstances. However, this viewpoint overlooks the inherent inequalities that exist among individuals, which may require an unequal distribution of resources. Therefore, when distributing benefits and burdens, it is essential to consider existing societal inequalities. For instance, if all workers receive the same wage regardless of their effort or skill level, it might discourage hardworking and skilled individuals who anticipate greater rewards compared to those with less effort or skill. Conversely, burdening everyone equally could lead to certain individuals feeling overwhelmed while others fail to contribute their fair share.
The author Velasquez (2008) provides another example to support this idea within a classroom setting. The belief that all individuals are equal necessitates equal educational opportunities. This means that thirty students, who possess varying abilities and talents, may be placed together in the same classroom with one instructor.
Teachers often end up targeting their teaching towards the ‘average’ students due to the essential diversity present in their classroom. This approach often leads to instructional levels that are too challenging for the slowest student and not challenging enough for the most skilled and talented students. Consequently, the slowest students struggle to learn while the skilled students lose interest. This raises questions about fairness. The veil of ignorance, which aims to distribute benefits and burdens fairly, may not be the best approach in these situations as it fails to provide incentives for talented individuals and does not adequately cater to everyone’s needs. Nevertheless, the veil of ignorance ensures that all individuals are granted equal rights, opportunities, and shares, according to Rawls. Rawls emphasizes the importance of providing everyone with a similar kind of education, treatment, law, and opportunities, rejecting immoral practices like slavery. Additionally, the veil of ignorance discriminates against unfair advantages resulting from unequal wealth, family background, intelligence, or social status. Therefore, it guarantees that no individual is considered superior based on their predetermined status or ability, offering equal potential for all to achieve.
In contemporary society, being born into a higher socioeconomic status provides a significant advantage in terms of benefits and burden-handling ability. The concept of the veil of ignorance promotes an equal distribution to balance potential. However, this approach does not necessarily result in a just and fair society, according to Rawls.
According to Rawls, fairness does not mean complete equality; instead, it suggests that benefits and burdens should be evenly distributed to avoid worsening conditions for the disadvantaged (Velasquez, 2008). Nonetheless, the idea of reverse discrimination arises as some individuals may have greater abilities or contribute more to society’s overall well-being.
Consequently, it seems reasonable for those who put in more effort to enjoy a larger share of benefits. Ultimately, individuals should receive benefits and burdens based on their abilities, achievements, wealth, and power – receiving what they deserve rather than aiming for strict equality with others.
Therefore,the distribution of benefits and burdens ought to reflect relevant differences among individuals (Velasquez, 2008).
Utilitarianism asserts that the morally correct action is the one that generates the most good (Driver, 2009). It acknowledges that morally acceptable behavior should not cause harm to others but rather increase happiness or ‘utility.’ As per Mill, a fair society is one that distributes advantages and disadvantages in a manner that leads to maximum social benefits or minimizes social harms (Velasquez, 2008, p. 19). Utilitarianism is appealing because it follows a decision-making model similar to how individuals make choices for themselves. By adopting a utilitarian perspective, society can attain the utmost level of well-being.
The concept of the government tax system demonstrates positive utilitarian thinking. Although the wealthy may not necessarily benefit from giving up a greater portion of their income compared to the less fortunate, society as a whole benefits from this arrangement. However, this perspective contradicts the idea of the veil of ignorance, which is considered unfair and unequal. The veil of ignorance rejects a utilitarian viewpoint, thereby hindering a society’s ability to achieve maximum well-being and advantages for all members. Consequently, reaching the highest potential becomes unattainable. A Theory of Justice offers an alternative to utilitarianism by evaluating how utilitarianism and social contract theory relate to justice. Rawls argues that social contract theory provides stronger support for equal rights for every individual.
Utilitarianism justifies violations of certain individuals’ rights if it leads to greater happiness for a larger number. In contrast, the theory of justice as fairness, which is a social contract theory, argues that encroachments upon fundamental rights can never be morally justified (Daniels, 1975). The overall welfare of many people outweighs the welfare of a few individuals. Utilitarians seem to prioritize the majority over the minority, regardless of whether this appears unfair or violates their basic rights and freedoms. The pursuit of the “greater good” and optimal well-being for society may include practices like slavery, with those making sacrifices not always receiving benefits in return.
In a society governed by Rawls’s principles of justice, the worst off individuals are conscious that their society is dedicated to ensuring they achieve the highest possible level of wellbeing. In contrast, utilitarianism does not provide this same guarantee as it necessitates individuals to have a stronger connection with the interests of others and be more willing to make sacrifices for their benefit (Kukathas & Pettit, 1990). When a society prioritizes the wellbeing of all its members, adopting a utilitarian perspective can bring significant advantages. However, if individuals in society are unaware of their own potential achievements and identities behind the veil of ignorance, achieving the average level of wellbeing in society becomes impossible. In our modern society, we must all be willing to make minor sacrifices in order to attain maximum benefits and promote the greater good for society.
In light of the preceding statements, arguments, and illustrations, it is evident that Rawls’ concept of the veil of ignorance and his principles of ‘justice as fairness’ are not logically sound or suitable for contemporary society. The defective notion of equality proposed by Rawls will ultimately result in societal injustice, while the absence of resource allocation for the collective well-being will lead to an unstable and impoverished society. Though there may be certain favorable aspects associated with the veil of ignorance, it remains purely hypothetical and improbable to benefit modern society in its entirety.
References
- Daniels, N. (1975). Reading Rawls: critical studies on Rawls’ A theory of justice. New York: Basic Books.
- Driver, Julia. (2009) The History of Utilitarianism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/utilitarianism-history/>.
- Freeman, Samuel, (2012) Original Position, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/original-position/>.
- Kukathas, C., & Pettit, P. (1990). Rawls: a theory of justice and its critics. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
- Velasquez, M. G. (2008). Social Philosophy. Philosophy: a text with readings (10th ed., pp. 566 583). Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth.
