The Original Position
What principles of justice would you choose if you had no idea what position you would occupy in the society those principles governed?
John Rawls introduced the Original Position in 1971 as the thought experiment at the heart of his theory of justice. The device asks you to reason about fair social arrangements from behind a veil of ignorance, stripping away self-interest so that the principles you choose are ones you could genuinely endorse from any position in society.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
The setup
Rawls asked us to imagine a hypothetical starting point called the Original Position. In it, representatives of future citizens must choose the basic principles that will govern their society. They deliberate behind a veil of ignorance: they do not know their own natural talents, social class, wealth, gender, race, or conception of the good.
This is not a historical claim about how societies were formed. It is a device for testing principles. If a principle is one you would reject if you might end up on the losing side, it probably isn't fair.
What rational people would choose
Rawls argued that people reasoning in the Original Position would choose two principles:
First, each person gets the most extensive system of basic liberties compatible with the same liberties for all: speech, conscience, political participation.
Second, social and economic inequalities are acceptable only if they are attached to positions open to everyone and arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society. This second part, the difference principle, is the controversial heart of Rawlsian justice. Inequality is permitted, but only when it raises the floor.
The objections
Libertarians like Nozick argued that the Original Position smuggles in a risk-averse reasoning strategy that would not be endorsed by everyone. Why must we choose as if we are afraid of ending up at the bottom? Some people would gamble on more unequal arrangements if the upside were large enough.
Communitarians objected that the veil of ignorance produces a person stripped of everything that makes them who they are. The resulting "self" is so thin that its choices tell us nothing about justice for actual human beings embedded in actual communities.
Rawls's response: the Original Position is not supposed to model real people's psychology. It is a tool for identifying principles we would accept if we were reasoning fairly, and fairness requires setting aside advantages we didn't earn.
Discussion questions
- If you did not know your place in society, which principle would you choose to govern it?
- Does the veil of ignorance produce fair principles, or does it stack the deck for risk-averse choices?
- Is there any principle you would choose for society that you would not be willing to have applied to you randomly?
Take it to the dinner table.
Get 3 thought experiments for memorable conversations, designed for dinner, with friends, at events, or anywhere small talk has gone on too long.