The Veil of Ignorance

[Hegemonicretribution]

I am sure many of you are more than a little familiar with this idea, but those who are unsure here is a portion of a wiki article:


The original position figures prominently in his book, A Theory of Justice, and it is one of the most influential ideas in twentieth-century philosophy. It has influenced a variety of thinkers from a broad spectrum of philosophical orientations. As a thought experiment, the original position is a hypothetical designed to accurately reflect what principles of justice would be manifest in a society premised on free and fair cooperation between citizens, including respect for liberty, and an interest in reciprocity.

In the state of nature, it might be argued that certain persons (the strong and talented) would be able to coerce others (the weak and disabled) by virtue of the fact that the stronger and more talented would fare better in the state of nature. This coercion is sometimes thought to invalidate any contractual arrangement occurring in the state of nature. In the original position, however, representatives of citizens are placed behind a veil of ignorance, depriving the representatives of information about the individuating characteristics of the citizens they represent. Thus, the representative parties would be unaware of the talents and abilities, ethnicity and gender, religion or belief system of the citizens they represent. As a result, they lack the information with which to threaten their fellows and thus invalidate the social contract they are attempting to agree to.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance)

What is your oppinion on this article? Also do you think it has any application to contemporary life?

[midnight marauder]

I made a post on this a while back. In short, like a lot of social contractarians, Rawls has some very good ideas but in my humble oppinion they just aren't possible in any practical sense to be used in running a society. I mean, I have quite a bit of respect for the man, but the Veil of Ignorance is a hypothetical scenario that doesn't quite exist in the real world, and in A Theory of Justice Rawls is the first to admit this.

I wrote some of why I think his theories are too idealistic to work in running a society in this thread that popped up a month or two ago: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=57001&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57001&hl=)


Justice as Fairness, while I suppose a nice idea, is purely idealistic. In this respect we can treat like any other social contract theory, as this is a trait social contracts almost universally share.

His two principles on this topic are essentially good, but not really useful for running a society. Justice as Fainress relies on Rawls' conception of the Origional Position, in which those in charge decide on rights for the public from an a priori viewpoint.

From a materialist standpoint, it just simply isn't realistic to pretend that those with such an incredible power (ruling a society), with so much to gain, could really divorce their views, backgrounds, and the contexts of their lives from the decisions that they make.

In addition to that, rights are never objective concepts. They're a human concept and as such, we each have different views on what is or is not a right. Things like abortion may never be viewed as a right by certain members of society, and under Rawl's contract, they just wouldn't happen.

That's why a veil of ignorance is just that and nothing else: an imaginary position without much ground in the real world.

I would say that, from a leftist perspective, A Theory of Justice is a very statist in the anarchist sense approach to a forumla for providing rights. It's a very classically liberal theory, and Rawls' is the first to admit it. Like you said, he simply wasn't a communist.

Being that rights are subjective (if you believe that), rights aren't something for a state to "decide" upon, whether in accordance with the first and second principle or not. Rights are something which the people themselves must decide on first and formost. Justice as Fairness subordinates citizens of a social contract into only having the ability to judge a society as being in accordance with justice, as opposed to them actually having the power to do anything about it.

This is a major flaw in all classic social contract theories. They're unapologetically top-down, without much options for those who don't agree to it. If you have the time, take a look at the Gunman vs. the Tax Collector thread in the Philosophy section: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55520

Also a problem with subjectivity, the two axioms of Justice as Fairness are extremely open to debate. There is, of course, no clear point at which one can decide which rights and inequalities are just. Especially in the second principle, there just isn't any objective way to determine what the "greatest benefit" is. If left to a statesman to decide what inequalities are to be present in a society, I wouldn't think it unrational to expect something which benefitst the ruling class.

As a way to judge a society, justice as fairness is a very good start. However, as anything else, it just simply isn't practical or useful.

It's best to treat it like it is: a very liberal and idealist idealogy, and nothing more.

As you can see I'm not the biggest fan of social contracts! :P

[apathy maybe]

I think you make some good points JUICE.

I also do not really like Rawls, apart from his statism etc., how the fuck does he think that he will implement this "Veil of Ignorence"? As well, I disagree with his conclusion, surely people would not select any form of capitalism, they would probably select some form of anarchism if they had the choice, but were ignorent about the world and their position in it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I don't personally admire his views that much either, but I still think at least the idea I picked out is interesting.

In response to your posted piece Juice I would suggest Mill, Mill is obviously different from those at which you aimed your criticism, but then again you may not consider him a classical contract theorist.

Back to the point; I agree that there is no real application to life with this, however I think it would not necessarily go as poorly (even though it is only hypothetical) as you suggested. If it was highly possible that you may be carrying a baby you could not handle, then it is fairl certain that the "rational" person would allow an escape clause of abortion. Self-preservation and self-sacrifice could both work with this model.

[midnight marauder]

I would agree. His views are interesting, and in terms of contractarians I'd say he's one of my favorites. My main problem with him and other similar philosophers is that I just don't see their use in a practical sense, and that I disagree with many of their assumptions with which they base their ideas upon. I mean, these are my major problems with his theories and theyre totally non unique to just Rawls, although I'd certainly perfer him to say, Locke with his emphasis on property, or Hobbes with his totalitarian statism, but I would much rather use Justice as Fairness as a criterion with which to judge a society rather then a set of rules used to govern one.

On the topic of Mill, I assume you're talking about JS Mill? Honestly he's really the only Mill that comes to mind aside from his wife Harriet, so forgive me if I'm mistaken. And you're right, I can't say that it's ever crossed my mind to consider him a social contract theorist in the typical sense of the term, rather I've always found his ideas on utilitarianism as more of a method for determining individual obligations and morality as opposed to a governments. Thanks for the suggestion; I hope I got the right Mill! :lol:

[Hegemonicretribution]

Yes John Stuart...I never knew his wifes name, but I know she influenced him. His father was a fairly prolific Mill also.