What does a fair society look like? How would we decide the rules of justice if we were completely impartial? These questions lie at the heart of John Rawls’ Original Position, one of the most influential thought experiments in modern political philosophy.
Rawls introduced this concept in A Theory of Justice (1971) as a way to determine the principles of justice that should govern a fair society. The Original Position is a hypothetical scenario in which rational individuals, stripped of personal biases and self-interest, decide the rules that will shape their society. To ensure fairness, they operate under a Veil of Ignorance, meaning they do not know their own social status, wealth, race, gender, or natural abilities.
This article explores Rawls’ Original Position, the Veil of Ignorance, its implications for justice, and criticisms of the theory.
The Original Position: A Fair Starting Point
Rawls' thought experiment asks us to imagine a rational deliberation process where individuals are tasked with designing the fundamental rules of their society. However, to ensure objectivity, these individuals do not know:
Their economic or social status (rich or poor, privileged or disadvantaged).
Their race, gender, or ethnicity.
Their intelligence, talents, or abilities.
Their personal values, religious beliefs, or conceptions of the good life.
This lack of knowledge is enforced by the Veil of Ignorance, a conceptual device ensuring that no one can craft laws that favor their particular position in society.
Rawls' core idea is that justice should not be based on luck, birth, or arbitrary advantages. If people do not know where they will end up in society, they will choose fair and equal principles that protect everyone, including the least advantaged.
Two Principles of Justice
Rawls argues that rational individuals in the Original Position would choose two key principles of justice:
1. The Equal Basic Liberties Principle
Each person is entitled to the most extensive set of equal basic liberties possible, as long as they do not infringe upon others' freedoms. These liberties include:
Freedom of speech and thought
Religious liberty
The right to own personal property
Freedom of association
Protection from arbitrary arrest or discrimination
This principle ensures that all individuals have fundamental rights that cannot be sacrificed for economic gain or societal efficiency.
2. The Difference Principle
Social and economic inequalities are only justifiable if they meet two conditions:
They benefit the least advantaged members of society (the "maximin" rule—maximize the minimum position).
They are attached to positions that are open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
This means that inequalities (such as differences in income, wealth, or status) are only acceptable if they improve the lives of the poorest and are based on merit rather than privilege.
For example, doctors may earn more than janitors, but only if the higher salaries encourage skilled individuals to become doctors, which benefits society as a whole, and that the opportunity to become a doctor is accessible to everyone, not just the wealthy or well-connected. In other words, Rawls' Difference Principle ensures that wealth and power do not concentrate at the expense of the worst-off.
Why the Original Position Matters
The Original Position is more than just an intellectual exercise—it provides a framework for thinking about fairness, justice, and policy-making. Its implications extend to politics, economics, and human rights.
1. A Model for Ethical Decision-Making
Rawls’ theory suggests that laws and policies should be designed as if they were chosen from behind a Veil of Ignorance. This is a useful tool for evaluating justice:
Would you support a tax system if you didn't know whether you’d be rich or poor?
Would you design a healthcare system if you didn’t know whether you’d be born healthy or disabled?
Would you allow racial discrimination if you didn’t know your own race?
2. Justifying Social Welfare & Redistribution
The Difference Principle provides a strong moral argument for progressive taxation, social safety nets, and public education. Since economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged, a system that lifts the poor while allowing economic incentives aligns with Rawls’ vision of justice.
3. A Defense of Liberal Democracy
Rawls’ Equal Basic Liberties Principle supports constitutional democracy, protecting freedoms such as speech, religion, and equal legal treatment. Any system that restricts fundamental rights—such as authoritarianism or caste-based discrimination—would not be chosen under the Original Position.
Criticisms of the Original Position
While Rawls’ thought experiment has been widely influential, it is not without criticism. Some philosophers argue that the Original Position is unrealistic or overly abstract.
Critics argue that people are not truly impartial and that real-world decision-making is driven by self-interest, cultural biases, and historical context. Political philosopher Robert Nozick challenged Rawls by arguing that justice should be based on individual liberty and property rights, rather than redistributive fairness.
Some economists argue that the Difference Principle discourages innovation and effort. If the talented and hardworking must always prioritise the least advantaged, will they still have incentives to excel? Libertarians argue that free markets, not government intervention, create the best opportunities for the disadvantaged.
Communitarian philosophers argue that Rawls' Veil of Ignorance ignores cultural values and traditions. Justice is not purely abstract but shaped by history, identity, and community ties.
Conclusion
Rawls' Original Position remains one of the most compelling frameworks for understanding justice and fairness. By imagining a world where no one knows their own social position, Rawls forces us to consider what a truly just society would look like.
His two principles - the Equal Basic Liberties Principle and the Difference Principle - offer a vision of a society where freedom, opportunity, and fairness coexist. While debates continue about the feasibility of Rawls' ideas, the Original Position provides a benchmark against which real-world policies can be judged.
Ultimately, Rawls' theory challenges us to ask: Would we accept the rules of society if we didn’t know where we’d end up? If not, those rules may not be just.