Philosophy
Rawlsian Justice as Fairness and the Veil of Ignorance
Quick fact
John Rawls argued that if you choose principles of justice from behind a 'veil of ignorance'—knowing nothing about your own position in society—you would reject utilitarianism and instead guarantee equal basic liberties and arrange inequalities so they benefit the least advantaged.
Why this is interesting
Imagine you had to design a fair society, but you didn't know if you'd be born rich or poor, healthy or sick, talented or not. What rules would you choose?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Rawlsian Justice as Fairness and the Veil of Ignorance
Think of the veil of ignorance as a fairness machine. Before we decide on society's rules, we are temporarily stripped of all knowledge about ourselves: our wealth, race, gender, talents, intelligence, and even our conception of the good life. We also don't know our generation or social status. This guarantees that no one can rig the rules to benefit their own situation. Since everyone is in this same state of ignorance, the principles they choose will be fair—because they are chosen without bias. Rawls calls this hypothetical choice situation the 'original position.' Behind this veil, rational people would not gamble with their lives; they would choose the safest, most secure principles. The result, Rawls argues, is not utilitarianism (which could sacrifice minorities for the greater good), but two principles: first, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all; second, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so they are (a) attached to positions open to all under fair equality of opportunity, and (b) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (the difference principle).
A deeper explanation
The mechanism that makes the veil of ignorance work is the combination of ignorance and rationality. Behind the veil, people are risk-averse because they cannot know their stake. This transforms justice into a choice under uncertainty. Rawls argues that rational contractors would adopt a 'maximin' strategy: maximize the minimum outcome. They would prefer a society where even the worst-off position is as good as possible, rather than a society with a higher average but a potentially terrible bottom. This leads to the difference principle. The veil also ensures the basic liberties are equal, because no one would agree to fewer rights if they might belong to the group denied them. The choice is unanimous because everyone has the same information and the same rational reasoning; hence the principles are just. This mechanism is a modern contractarian twist on the social contract: it's not about actual historical agreement, but about a hypothetical agreement that any reasonable person would endorse. The veil of ignorance forces impartiality and yields principles that uphold both liberty and equality.