Suppose one bright and sunny day the Goddess of Ethics, Morals, Principles, and Losing Politicians appeared to you with a request. She has created a computer game that is finished in every which way except for one. She has not yet designed the political, economic, and social structure of the society in the game. She'd like you to help her with that.
Now, to be precise, all she wants from you are a few general principles to guide her in designing the society. Specifically, she wants you to come up with some rules that will make the society's distribution of wealth, goods, services, and benefits fair and just for all players. Once you give her the general ideas or principles, she'll take the rest of it from there.
But before you can get started, she adds two more details. First, once the game is completed, you yourself will get to play it.
Second, you cannot know ahead of time -- while you're helping her to design the game -- which character you will play. That means, you cannot know what your future character's share of the society's wealth, goods, services, and benefits will be. You've got to design the rules or principles according to which those things will be shared or distributed -- but blind to what your own share or distribution of them will be.
John Rawls
If the above actually happened, you could pretty darn sure the Goddess had been reading John Rawls. Rawls was an American philosopher and he came up with more or less the very same challenge as the Goddess did -- only he applied the challenge to the design of any real society, rather than to the design of a computer game.
Rawls wanted to do more than just design a society. He wanted to design a fair and just society. And he wanted to do it in a way that any rational, impartial person could agree was fair and just.
In other words, Rawls wanted to cook up a society that was arguably the most rational design if you were aiming for a fair and just society.
Rawls' "Original Position" Scenario
Which is all nice and dandy, but how then can Rawls guarantee his design is the "most rational design"? And that's where his "Original Position" scenario comes in.
What if you were asked to create the rules for the distribution of a society's wealth, goods, services, and benefits, a society you knew you would have to live in someday, but your starting position -- your "original position" -- was that you knew absolutely nothing about who or what you would be in that society? Wouldn't that encourage you to design a society that was fair and just for everyone? That way, no matter who or what you ended up being in that society, the society would be structured in a way that was fair and just to you.
In philosophical terms, Rawls was what is called a "social contract theorist". Rawls -- like another philosopher, Immanuel Kant -- believed humans have the intellectual capacity to rationally judge principles of ethics, justice, fairness, and so forth in an impartial manner.
But he was suspicious of people's willingness to be impartial when they themselves could see an advantage to skewing the rules in their own favor. Hence, Rawls' original position scenario in which you are are asked to design the society behind a "veil of ignorance" so that it's impossible to tailor the design to your own advantage. He describes that veil as a situation in which:
According to Rawls, the designers, working behind a veil of ignorance, would adopt a strategy of maximizing the prospects of the least well off while simultaneously structuring the society in a manner that was fair and just to all. At least they would if they were rational.
Going Beyond the Original Position
If you wish to check out the principles that Rawls himself came up with for the design of a society, you can find them discussed in this thread: John Rawls on the Fair and Just Society
Questions
What do you make of Rawls' original position scenario? Is it a useful thought-experiment for helping people to come up with fair and just rules for the distribution of a society's resources and benefits? Is there a better way to go about such a task?
If you were asked to design a society from a Rawlsian original position, what rules or principles for the distribution of resources and benefits would you come up with?
Now, to be precise, all she wants from you are a few general principles to guide her in designing the society. Specifically, she wants you to come up with some rules that will make the society's distribution of wealth, goods, services, and benefits fair and just for all players. Once you give her the general ideas or principles, she'll take the rest of it from there.
But before you can get started, she adds two more details. First, once the game is completed, you yourself will get to play it.
Second, you cannot know ahead of time -- while you're helping her to design the game -- which character you will play. That means, you cannot know what your future character's share of the society's wealth, goods, services, and benefits will be. You've got to design the rules or principles according to which those things will be shared or distributed -- but blind to what your own share or distribution of them will be.
John Rawls
If the above actually happened, you could pretty darn sure the Goddess had been reading John Rawls. Rawls was an American philosopher and he came up with more or less the very same challenge as the Goddess did -- only he applied the challenge to the design of any real society, rather than to the design of a computer game.
Rawls wanted to do more than just design a society. He wanted to design a fair and just society. And he wanted to do it in a way that any rational, impartial person could agree was fair and just.
In other words, Rawls wanted to cook up a society that was arguably the most rational design if you were aiming for a fair and just society.
Rawls' "Original Position" Scenario
Which is all nice and dandy, but how then can Rawls guarantee his design is the "most rational design"? And that's where his "Original Position" scenario comes in.
What if you were asked to create the rules for the distribution of a society's wealth, goods, services, and benefits, a society you knew you would have to live in someday, but your starting position -- your "original position" -- was that you knew absolutely nothing about who or what you would be in that society? Wouldn't that encourage you to design a society that was fair and just for everyone? That way, no matter who or what you ended up being in that society, the society would be structured in a way that was fair and just to you.
In philosophical terms, Rawls was what is called a "social contract theorist". Rawls -- like another philosopher, Immanuel Kant -- believed humans have the intellectual capacity to rationally judge principles of ethics, justice, fairness, and so forth in an impartial manner.
But he was suspicious of people's willingness to be impartial when they themselves could see an advantage to skewing the rules in their own favor. Hence, Rawls' original position scenario in which you are are asked to design the society behind a "veil of ignorance" so that it's impossible to tailor the design to your own advantage. He describes that veil as a situation in which:
"...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities."
According to Rawls, the designers, working behind a veil of ignorance, would adopt a strategy of maximizing the prospects of the least well off while simultaneously structuring the society in a manner that was fair and just to all. At least they would if they were rational.
Going Beyond the Original Position
If you wish to check out the principles that Rawls himself came up with for the design of a society, you can find them discussed in this thread: John Rawls on the Fair and Just Society
Questions
What do you make of Rawls' original position scenario? Is it a useful thought-experiment for helping people to come up with fair and just rules for the distribution of a society's resources and benefits? Is there a better way to go about such a task?
If you were asked to design a society from a Rawlsian original position, what rules or principles for the distribution of resources and benefits would you come up with?