The Veil of Ignorance by John Rawls: what it is and what this idea proposes

In 1971 he appeared A Theory of Justice, which is considered the main work of the American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002). In it, the thinker answered the questions that he had already launched in his 1957 article Justice as fairness (Justice as fairness), where it was proposed to overcome the predominant utilitarian doctrine in the West and, especially, in the Anglo-Saxon world.

It is in the theoretical context of Rawls's concept of justice where we must insert his theory of the "veil of ignorance" which, as we shall see, is not a his original idea, since other previous philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and David Hume (1711-1776) already delved into it in the 17th century. XVIII. John Rawls picks up this theory and brings it closer to his field.

In this article we will briefly explain what John Rawls' famous "veil of ignorance" consists of. and how we can frame it in his theory of justice, so important to the political process in the world today.

• Related article: "The 6 differences between ethics and morals"

What is the veil of ignorance by John Rawls?

We can define this idea as the situation of ignorance in which the different members of what Hawls calls the "original position" must find themselves, that is, the state in which the parties will choose a series of principles on which justice must be based. This ignorance goes through not knowing what the ultimate goals of each individual that makes up the this "original position", which will make them decide these principles with the greatest impartiality possible.

But, definitions aside, to fully understand this idea we must go back a bit to Hawls's conception of justice. Otherwise, it will be impossible for us to understand what the philosopher means when he talks about concepts such as the “veil of ignorance” or the “original position”. Let's see it.

Justice and the social contract

John Rawls never hid in his works that he directly took the ideas of the enlightened philosophers (like the aforementioned Kant and Hume) to design their own conception of justice and of the contract social. In the preface to his work A Theory of Justice Rawls states that what he intends is to take the eighteenth-century concept of the social contract to a “higher state of abstraction”.

But what is the social contract? Both Kant and Rousseau, two of the main champions of this concept, started from the premise that the primordial stage of the human being was a "natural state", where there was no explicit law. The human being could subsist without laws because he was, according to these philosophers, "good by nature", and was governed exclusively by natural laws.

According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), this "natural" state of non-possession (and therefore non-conflict) is lost when civil society appeared and, with it, the abuse and subjugation of certain people and elites. From then on, a "social contract" is absolutely necessary, that is, an agreement between individuals, in order to coexist peacefully and in harmony.

The main difference between Rousseau's social contract and Rawls's is that, while the former presumes that the contract is necessary In order to “access” the company, the second considers that this contract must be carried out previously, that is, before the configuration of said society. Only in this way, according to Rawls, can it be guaranteed that the parties that have decision-making capacity work based on the principles of equality and freedom.

For this to happen, Rawls argues for the need for an "original position", that is, a primal situation that is based on in equity and where the members unanimously agree on the principles that should govern the justice. In other words; Rawls's theory emphasizes that the aforementioned social contract can only be fair and truly equitable if it is established in a phase prior to the appearance of inequalities. Only in this way can a real impartiality of the parties be guaranteed.

• You may be interested in: "How are Psychology and Philosophy alike?"

The "original position"

Thus, John Rawls describes this "original position" as a previous stage necessary to configure the principles that will govern social justice. It is a cooperation that sets its sights on a single goal: the common good. Societies, says Rawls, have reached a considerable degree of disorder, which inevitably entails a terrible inequality among its members. The origin of this chaos is, according to the theories of the philosopher, the non-existence of this "original position" when establishing the bases of justice. Thus, Rawls proposes to return to this initial position to start from scratch and truly build a just and equitable society.

The main critics that this theory has received are, of course, those who consider it something utopian and unrealizable. Rawls is aware of this when he describes the "original position" as hypothetical and not historical. Hypothetical, because it does not ensure what the parties have agreed, but what they could agree on. And not historical, because it is obviously a situation that has never occurred and (adds Rawls) probably never will.

We deduce from these statements that Rawls was well aware of the impossibility of his theory, which makes him move on an absolutely ideal and abstract terrain.

• Related article: "The branches of the Humanities (and what each of them studies)"

The veil of ignorance and Rawls's theory of justice

Once all this is established, we are in a position to explain what Rawls's “veil of ignorance” is and what it consists of. It was strictly necessary to briefly summarize his theory of justice (and, above all, his concept of "original position") in order to understand it properly.

Authors such as Kant and Hume had already proposed this concept as a condition sine qua non to establish the social contract. If the members of society are not somewhat ignorant of their future conditions, they will inevitably fall into self-interest when making agreements.. Therefore, prior ignorance of the contract is necessary, so that it is as impartial as possible and oriented to the common good.

The level of ignorance varies according to the authors. Kant advocated that the information given to the parties to the agreement was fair and necessary, and Rawls follows this path in his theory. According to the American philosopher, the more "thick" the veil, the greater the impartiality of the decisions made by the parties. In other words; If the parties are unaware of their place in society, as well as other issues Rawls describes as their luck and distribution of natural talents, their decisions will not be made. will be based on personal interests, which is precisely what has led human beings to live in a utilitarian society, where the only thing that prevails is profit individual.

In this way, Rawls's theory of justice contrasts with the so-called "utility principle", where personal interests actually prevail. It is not that the philosopher totally renounces individual benefit, but rather that he proposes a new balance between the liberal tradition of the West (founded on individualism) and the tradition community. Only in this way, according to him, can a truly just and equanimous society be built.