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
1. Introduction
2. The Original Position
3. The Original Position is more useful than utilitarianism for theorising about a just society
4. Criticism, Original Position, and different conceptions of personhood
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Themes
The essay evaluates the utility of John Rawls’s "Original Position" (OP) as a methodology for determining principles of a just society, specifically contrasting its effectiveness against utilitarianism while considering different conceptions of personhood.
- Comparative analysis between Rawlsian justice and utilitarian frameworks.
- The impact of the "veil of ignorance" on rational decision-making.
- Limitations of the OP regarding universally valid theorizing.
- The influence of communal versus individual conceptions of personhood on justice.
- Critique of the OP by scholars such as Scanlon, MacIntyre, and Sandel.
Excerpt from the Book
The Original Position
Rawls’s OP is meant to be an impartial and fair viewpoint which should be adopted when figuring out fundamental principles of justice. The OP’s main feature is the veil of ignorance. It entails that in the OP, nobody knows about his or her place in society, class, social status, talents, abilities, particular psychology or conception of the good. It is from this point of view that the parties participating in the OP deliberations are shown a list of conceptions of justice from the tradition of western political philosophy. The list includes perfectionism, intuitionism, several forms of utilitarianism, justice as fairness, rational egoism and some mixed conceptions combining different elements of these. Furthermore, they know [...] all kinds of general facts about persons and societies, including knowledge of the relatively uncontroversial laws and generalizations derivable from economics, psychology, political science, and biology and other natural sciences. They know then about the general tendencies of human behavior and psychological development, about biological evolution, and about how economic markets work, including neo-classical price theory of supply and demand. […] [T]hey also know about […] the desirability of the ‘primary social goods’ that are needed by anyone to live a good life and to develop their ‘moral powers’ and other capacities.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: The author introduces John Rawls’s Original Position and sets out the central claims regarding its utility in contrast to utilitarianism and its limitations in universal application.
2. The Original Position: This chapter defines the core mechanisms of the Original Position, specifically the "veil of ignorance" and the principles of justice (liberty, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle) that rational agents would choose.
3. The Original Position is more useful than utilitarianism for theorising about a just society: The author argues that the OP provides superior protections against the "separateness of persons" objection inherent in utilitarianism by applying the maximin rule.
4. Criticism, Original Position, and different conceptions of personhood: This section addresses critiques by Scanlon, MacIntyre, and Sandel, and presents the "wake-up argument" to demonstrate that the OP is culturally dependent on an individualistic conception of personhood.
5. Conclusion: The author summarizes the findings, confirming that the OP is superior for individualistic societies, while utilitarianism may be as effective for societies structured around communal conceptions of personhood.
Keywords
Original Position, John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Veil of Ignorance, Utilitarianism, Maximin Rule, Justice as Fairness, Individual Conception of Personhood, Communal Conception of Personhood, Liberty Principle, Difference Principle, Social Lottery, Political Theory, Moral Powers, Fairness.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this essay?
The essay explores the practical usefulness of John Rawls’s "Original Position" as a framework for constructing a just society, specifically examining its advantages and limitations compared to other theories like utilitarianism.
What are the central thematic areas discussed?
Key areas include the mechanisms of the Original Position (veil of ignorance), the derivation of justice principles, the critique of utilitarian approaches, and the role of cultural or individual conceptions of personhood in political philosophy.
What is the core research question?
The paper addresses how useful the Original Position is for theorizing about a just society and whether its validity is universal or context-dependent.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses conceptual analysis, comparative political theory, and a thought experiment (the "wake-up argument") to test the limitations of Rawls’s framework.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The body covers the definition of the Original Position, a comparison between Rawlsian justice and utilitarianism, a review of philosophical critiques of Rawls, and an exploration of how communal versus individual views of humanity affect justice models.
Which keywords best describe the research?
The work is characterized by terms such as Original Position, Veil of Ignorance, Liberty Principle, Difference Principle, and conceptions of personhood.
What is the "wake-up argument" introduced by the author?
It is a thought experiment featuring a character named Sally, designed to show that justice principles are deeply influenced by social conventions, such as whether a society prioritizes individual or communal conceptions of personhood.
How does the author evaluate the "separateness of persons" objection?
The author argues that the Original Position is superior to utilitarianism because it protects individual rights (the liberty principle) and prevents the "sacrifice" of individuals for the greater collective good.
Does the author conclude that the Original Position is universally valid?
No, the author concludes that the OP is specifically effective for societies with an individualistic conception of personhood but may not be universally applicable to communities with different cultural understandings of the individual and society.
- 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
