For the uninitiated, Rawls argues that society should determine rules as if they were mediated in an “original position” in which nobody knows their ultimate role or social class in life, and that it is rules determined in such a way that may truly be called “just”. This “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” that separates it from the practical world is profoundly frustrating, because in my opinion the individuality that would be necessary for us to consent to the deliberation of rules is necessarily stripped in the “original position”, preventing rules determined in such a way from being meaningful.
Even if one takes the “veil of ignorance” position seriously, the resulting theory of justice looks nothing like the one Rawls derives from it.
Even if one takes the “veil of ignorance” position seriously, the resulting theory of justice looks nothing like the one Rawls derives from it.
I’m not committed to his particular theory. I’m curious to see what the result would look like.