The original position (“OP”) is an essential component of John Rawls’s account of justice as presented in his seminal A Theory of Justice. In this essay, I claim that 1) Rawls OP is (at least in societies shaped by an individual conception of personhood) more useful for theorising about a just society than utilitarianism; 2) the OP fails (like other methodologies) to be useful for universally valid theorising about a just society; 3) for a society shaped by a communal conception of personhood, utilitarianism is as good as the OP for theorizing about a just society. To do so, I first present Rawls’ OP. Then I point out why the OP is more useful than utilitarianism when theorising about a just society. Third, I briefly mention a common objection against the OP and defend it against it. Finally, I present what I call the wake-up argument and its implications for theorising about a just society behind the veil of ignorance.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The Original Position
- The Original Position is more useful than utilitarianism for theorising about a just society
- Criticism, Original Position, and different conceptions of personhood
Objectives and Key Themes
This essay assesses the usefulness of Rawls' Original Position (OP) for theorizing about a just society. It argues that the OP's value is contingent upon the societal conception of personhood, being more useful than utilitarianism in societies with an individualistic conception but equally useful as utilitarianism in societies with a communal conception.
- The usefulness of Rawls' Original Position in theorizing about justice.
- Comparison of Rawls' Original Position with utilitarianism.
- The impact of differing conceptions of personhood (individual vs. communal) on the applicability of Rawls' theory.
- Limitations of the Original Position in achieving universally valid principles of justice.
- The "wake-up argument" and its implications for justice.
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This essay examines the utility of Rawls' Original Position (OP) in theorizing about a just society. The author argues that the OP surpasses utilitarianism in societies characterized by individualistic conceptions of personhood but offers no significant advantage over utilitarianism in societies with communal conceptions of personhood. The essay outlines its structure, foreshadowing the presentation of Rawls' OP, a comparison with utilitarianism, a defense against common objections, and the introduction of a "wake-up argument" highlighting the limitations of the OP.
The Original Position: This section details Rawls' Original Position, emphasizing the "veil of ignorance" as a crucial element ensuring impartiality in the selection of principles of justice. It describes the knowledge available to individuals behind the veil, including general facts about society and human nature but excluding specific information about their individual circumstances. The process of choosing principles of justice, motivated by rational self-interest in acquiring primary social goods, is explained. The resulting principles of justice—liberty, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle—are presented, illustrating how they aim to mitigate the effects of both the social and natural lotteries.
The Original Position is more useful than utilitarianism for theorising about a just society: This section argues for the superiority of Rawls' OP over utilitarianism in constructing a just society. It highlights how the OP's principles, particularly the liberty principle, avoid the utilitarian pitfalls of sacrificing individual rights for the greater good, exemplified by the "separateness of persons" objection. The maximin rule, derived from the OP, ensures a minimum level of primary goods, safeguarding individual rights and opportunities. This contrasts with utilitarianism, which lacks this guarantee of minimal well-being for all. The section explains that the OP fulfills conditions necessary for the rationality of the maximin rule, leading to a fairer society than utilitarianism.
Criticism, Original Position, and different conceptions of personhood: This section addresses criticisms of Rawls' OP, including Scanlon's challenge to its necessity and MacIntyre and Sandel's argument about the psychological capacity of individuals behind the veil of ignorance to make rational choices. The author refutes these criticisms, highlighting that individuals don't need complete self-knowledge for rational decision-making regarding societal structures enabling the pursuit of their goals. The central argument introduces a "wake-up argument," a thought experiment contrasting societies with individualistic and communal conceptions of personhood. This illustrates how the OP's applicability is context-dependent, potentially yielding different, even seemingly utilitarian, principles depending on the prevailing societal values and conceptions of personhood.
Keywords
Rawls, Original Position, Veil of Ignorance, Justice as Fairness, Utilitarianism, Liberty Principle, Difference Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity, Communal Conception of Personhood, Individual Conception of Personhood, Maximin Rule, Social Lottery, Natural Lottery, Separateness of Persons.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comprehensive Language Preview
What is the main topic of this essay?
This essay examines the usefulness of John Rawls's "Original Position" (OP) as a framework for theorizing about a just society. It compares the OP to utilitarianism and argues that its value depends on the societal conception of personhood.
What are the key themes explored in the essay?
The essay explores the following key themes: the usefulness of Rawls's Original Position; a comparison of Rawls's Original Position with utilitarianism; the impact of different conceptions of personhood (individual vs. communal) on the applicability of Rawls's theory; limitations of the Original Position in achieving universally valid principles of justice; and the implications of a "wake-up argument" for justice.
What is Rawls's Original Position?
Rawls's Original Position is a hypothetical scenario where individuals choose principles of justice behind a "veil of ignorance," unaware of their own social status, talents, and circumstances. This ensures impartiality in the selection of principles. The chosen principles aim to mitigate the effects of both social and natural lotteries.
How does the Original Position compare to utilitarianism?
The essay argues that the Original Position surpasses utilitarianism in societies with individualistic conceptions of personhood because it protects individual rights and ensures a minimum level of well-being for all, unlike utilitarianism which can sacrifice individual rights for the greater good. However, in societies with communal conceptions of personhood, the advantage of the Original Position over utilitarianism is less clear.
What is the "veil of ignorance," and why is it important?
The "veil of ignorance" is a crucial element of Rawls's Original Position. It ensures that individuals choosing principles of justice are impartial, as they lack knowledge of their own social standing, abilities, and circumstances. This prevents biased choices in favor of specific groups.
What are the principles of justice derived from the Original Position?
The principles of justice derived from the Original Position include: the liberty principle (equal basic liberties for all), fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle (inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society).
What are the criticisms of Rawls's Original Position addressed in the essay?
The essay addresses criticisms concerning the necessity of the Original Position and the psychological capacity of individuals behind the veil of ignorance to make rational choices. It also considers whether the OP can yield universally valid principles of justice.
What is the "wake-up argument," and what are its implications?
The "wake-up argument" is a thought experiment that contrasts societies with individualistic and communal conceptions of personhood. It demonstrates that the applicability and outcomes of the Original Position are context-dependent, potentially leading to different principles of justice depending on the prevailing societal values.
What are the key limitations of the Original Position?
A key limitation of the Original Position, highlighted by the "wake-up argument," is its potential lack of universality. The principles derived from the OP may not be equally applicable or desirable across all societies, particularly those with differing conceptions of personhood.
What are the keywords associated with this essay?
Rawls, Original Position, Veil of Ignorance, Justice as Fairness, Utilitarianism, Liberty Principle, Difference Principle, Fair Equality of Opportunity, Communal Conception of Personhood, Individual Conception of Personhood, Maximin Rule, Social Lottery, Natural Lottery, Separateness of Persons.
- Citar trabajo
- David Schneider (Autor), 2018, How useful is Rawls’ Original Position for theorizing about a just society?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/417211
