4.3. John Rawls’ Theory of Justice

If people are asked to choose the kind of society in which they would like to live, they are likely to choose one in which the rules and organisation of society allot them a privileged position. We cannot expect everyone to put aside their personal interests and think of the good of society, especially if they believe that their decision is going to have an impact on the kind of life and opportunities their children will have in the future.

In this chunk, Rawls begins by identifying a fundamental challenge in creating a fair society. He notes that when asked, people often want to ensure their own advantages in any societal setup. This indicates that self-interest is natural and might lead to unfair outcomes. Understanding that parental instincts drive decisions about personal welfare also underscores the difficulty in forming a universally just society.

Imagine you're in a game where each player can design their rules to benefit themselves. Most players would create rules that favor their position, leading to unfair advantages. This reflects how, in society, people naturally think about their interests, making fair rule-making challenging.

John Rawls has tried to answer this question. He argues that the only way we can arrive at a fair and just rule is if we imagine ourselves to be in a situation in which we have to make decisions about how society should be organised although we do not know which position we would ourselves occupy in that society. That is, we do not know what kind of family we would be born in, whether we would be born into an ‘upper’ caste or ‘lower’ caste family, rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged.

Rawls presents the 'veil of ignorance' as a thought experiment. It invites individuals to design societal rules without any knowledge of their future status or position in that society. This promotes fair decision-making, as it compels one to think about the worst-off scenario and create rules that ensure fairness for everyone, particularly the disadvantaged.

Think about how a child might share candies with peers. If the child didn't know whether he would end up with a lot or very few candies, he might decide to share equally to ensure fairness, rather than hoarding all the candies. This scenario resonates with Rawls' idea that ignorance about one's standing leads to just rules.

Rawls argues that if we do not know, in this sense, who we will be and what options would be available to us in the future society, we will be likely to support a decision about the rules and organisation of that future society which would be fair for all the members. It will be clear to a person who can reason and think for himself, that those who are born privileged will enjoy certain special opportunities. But what if they have the misfortune of being born in a disadvantaged section of society where few opportunities would be available to them?

In this section, Rawls emphasizes the importance of considering the least advantaged when forming society's rules. He posits that under the veil of ignorance, rational individuals would advocate for rules that benefit everyone, especially those in less favorable situations. This promotes better societal structure, ensuring opportunities and resources are accessible to all.

Picture a classroom where students are setting rules for grading. Understanding some might struggle, they would opt for rules ensuring all students get extra time or support, reflecting how when we consider everyone’s varying needs, we create a more accommodating and fair environment.

Rawls therefore argues that rational thinking, not morality, could lead us to be fair and judge impartially regarding how to distribute the benefits and burdens of a society. In his example, there are no goals or norms of morality that are given to us in advance and we remain free to determine what is best for ourselves.

Rawls posits that rational decision-making, rather than morality alone, drives fairness in society. By focusing on self-interest under the veil of ignorance, he suggests that individuals naturally gravitate towards equitable solutions that account for everyone's needs rather than purely ethical considerations.

Consider a negotiation about team roles in a project. Instead of ruling based on ethical dilemmas about who's 'better', team members might rationally decide roles according to what each can contribute, thus ensuring that everyone’s strengths and weaknesses are fairly accounted for.

--