INTRODUCTION

THE ORIGINAL POSITION & THE VEIL

OF IGNORANCE
At the heart of Rawls’ theory is the concept of the original position and the veil
of ignorance. These constructs are designed to determine principles of justice
in a way that eliminates bias and self-interest.

THE ORIGINAL POSITION:

● The original position is a hypothetical scenario in which individuals
come together to agree on the principles of justice that will govern their
society.
● These individuals are rational, self-interested, and morally equal, but
they lack specific knowledge about their own circumstances.
THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE:
● To ensure fairness, individuals in the original position operate under a
veil of ignorance, which strips them of knowledge about their own
characteristics—such as race, gender, class, or talents.
● They do not know their social status, abilities, or personal preferences.
● This ignorance ensures that the principles they choose are not
influenced by personal advantage and are instead universally fair.
● The veil of ignorance forces individuals to adopt a perspective of
impartiality.
● For example, a person who does not know if they will be rich or poor is
unlikely to choose a principle that permits extreme inequality, as they
might end up among the disadvantaged.
 JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
Rawls characterizes his theory as “justice as fairness” because the
principles are derived from a fair initial agreement. This fairness is rooted in
the hypothetical conditions of the original position and the impartiality imposed
by the veil of ignorance. Unlike utilitarianism, which aggregates welfare,
Rawls’ theory focuses on distributing benefits and burdens in a manner that
respects individual rights and addresses inequality.

THE TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE:

Rawls argues that individuals in the original position would agree on two
fundamental principles of justice:

1. The Equal Liberty Principle-

● Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive set of
basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for others.
● These liberties include political freedoms (e.g., freedom of
speech and the right to vote), freedom of thought, and
protection under the law.
● This principle ensures the prioritization of individual rights and
freedoms.
2. The Difference Principle-
● Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they
satisfy two conditions:
○ They are attached to positions and offices open to all under
conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
○ They are arranged to benefit the least advantaged
members of society.
● The difference principle reflects Rawls’ commitment to mitigating
the effects of arbitrary inequalities, such as those resulting from
birth or natural talent.
● It allows for some level of inequality but only when it works to
improve the position of the most disadvantaged.

LEXICAL ORDERING OF RAWLS’ PRINCIPLES:

This ordering ensures that basic liberties cannot be sacrificed for economic or
social advantages, reflecting Rawls’ belief in the inviolability of individual
rights. Rawls assigns a lexical ordering to his principles to resolve conflicts
between them:
 1. The Equal Liberty Principle takes precedence over the Difference
Principle.
2. Within the Difference Principle, fair equality of opportunity has priority
over the arrangement of inequalities.

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE: A PERSPECTIVE

FROM JOHN RAWLS
Procedural justice focuses on the fairness of the processes that lead to
outcomes rather than the fairness of the outcomes themselves. From Rawls'
perspective, procedural justice emphasizes the importance of creating rules
and institutions that are fair, impartial, and consistently applied. He argues that
justice is not merely about achieving specific results but about ensuring that
the process by which decisions are made is just.
Rawls introduces the concept of the "original position" and the "veil of
ignorance" as a thought experiment to achieve procedural fairness. In the
original position, individuals are placed behind a veil of ignorance, where they
do not know their position, status, or abilities in society. This ensures
impartiality, as decisions made under these conditions would be fair to all,
irrespective of their eventual position in society.
SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE: A PERSPECTIVE
FROM JOHN RAWLS
Substantive justice, in contrast, is concerned with the fairness of outcomes. It
evaluates whether the results of a process align with certain principles of
fairness, equality, or morality.
Rawls connects substantive justice with his two principles of justice:

1. The Liberty Principle:

Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties
compatible with similar liberties for others.
2. The Difference Principle:
Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the
least advantaged members of society.

These principles ensure that the structure of society is substantively just.

However, Rawls argues that substantive justice cannot be separated from
procedural justice. A just society must be built on fair processes that result in
equitable outcomes, ensuring that the two dimensions of justice are
complementary.

PURE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE: A

PERSPECTIVE FROM JOHN RAWLS
Rawls' theory of justice seamlessly integrates procedural and substantive
justice, suggesting that a society can achieve fairness only through the
harmonious interaction of these concepts. While substantive justice ensures
that the outcomes align with moral and ethical standards, procedural justice
guarantees the fairness of the methods used to achieve these outcomes. Pure
procedural justice, on the other hand, highlights the scenarios where the
process alone determines the fairness of results.
Pure procedural justice, as Rawls describes it, exists when there are no
independent criteria for the fairness of outcomes; instead, justice depends
entirely on the fairness of the process. In such cases, if the procedure is
just, then the outcomes it produces are also considered just, irrespective of
their specific nature.

Rawls contrasts pure procedural justice with two other types of procedural
justice:
● Perfect Procedural Justice: where both the process and the outcome
are independently justifiable.
● Imperfect Procedural Justice: where a just outcome is desired, but
the process does not guarantee it.

Pure procedural justice plays a critical role in Rawls' framework. For instance,
the original position under the veil of ignorance is an example of pure
procedural justice. Here, the fairness of the outcome—choosing principles of
justice—depends entirely on the fairness of the procedure (the conditions of
the original position).

CRITICISMS OF RAWLS’ THEORY & HIS

RESPONSES TO THEM
While Rawls’ theory has been widely celebrated, it has also faced significant
criticism. Some of the major critiques are:
APPLICATIONS OF RAWLS’ THEORY OF
JUSTICE