Reference no: EM133531436

Case Study: Rawls imagines a hypothetical scenario where rational and informed individuals choose principles of justice under conditions of radical impartiality. Remember that to be "impartial" - in the sense that this term is used in ethics - is to consider the interests of everyone equally, without prejudice or bias. Rawls achieves impartiality by imagining that the individuals choosing principles of justice do so behind what he calls the "veil of ignorance." The individuals behind the veil do not know their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Neither do they know their intelligence, abilities, talents or tastes. Upon reflection we can see that what Rawls is doing is applying the insight behind the "Golden Rule." "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" requires us to be impartial. What happens if we apply this principle to political philosophy? To see more clearly what Rawls is doing, recall the Constitution Convention leading to the U.S. Constitution that became officially established in 1788. The Constitution is a great document and has been used as a model for other constitutions around the globe - and yet it still had major flaws. For starters, it allowed for - and gave implicit acceptance of - slavery. Further it allowed for the possibility that women (and even men who did not own property) could be denied the vote. Now, who were the individuals who wrote the Constitution? Answer: Land-owning white males. Is it so much of a stretch to suppose that this had something to do with the way the Constitution turned out? It is hard to believe that had blacks and women been represented that they would have accepted the possibility of slavery and denied voting rights to women. So this, in essence, is the question Rawls asks us: What if the members of the Constitutional Convention did not know their race or gender - and there was a chance that they themselves might "turn out" to have more melanin in their skin or to be female (or both)? Do you suppose they would have still allowed for black slavery and denied the vote to women? The answer to the above question is presumably a resounding "no." And so this gives us a bit of a grip on the big picture Rawls is offering us: What he seeks is an idealized "constitutional convention" where the biases of race, gender, etc. do not come into play. So, according to Rawls, what principles would be chosen from behind the veil of ignorance? Here is a brief summary: 1. Greatest Equal Liberty Principle: Everyone is to be guaranteed the greatest amount of freedom consistent with equal freedom for everyone. (Think of something like our "Bill of Rights": Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure, etc.) 2. The Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities are justified - but only to the extent that they benefit everyone (especially the least well-off). → Rawls did not argue for absolute economic equality because he believed we needed a way to induce people to work harder, become educated, take risks, etc. It is worth noting Rawls' view that - were these two principles to come into conflict - the *first* principle should take precedence over the second.

Question: After watching the videos for this week and looking over the "Summary of John Rawls," I would like you to try out Rawls' "Original Position" thought-experiment! As best you can, try to put yourself behind the "veil of ignorance" and imagine that you do not yet know your race, gender, status, etc. What kind of society do you think would be "fair"? What principles would you choose to regulate your society? And finally, tell whether you believe our current society lives up to your "ideal." Responses should be at least six sentences.