Friday, November 4, 2011
Rawls' original position states that a just social contract is the one we would agree to if we did not know where we would be in the society we are agreeing to. I think this is true because when put behind a "veil of ignorance" we become sympathetic to all views and circumstances. Every position becomes our position and so it becomes important that the rules, laws, expectation, etc. be truly just for everyone. When we do not know who we will be in a society we see ourselves as everyone in the society and make decisions with every possibility in mind. If we do not know if we will be rich or poor, we want society to be just for both the rich and the poor. If we do not know if we will be male or female, we want it to be just for both men and women. Not knowing makes us apply the human instinct of looking out for ones self to everyone. It uses an aspect of human nature that normally results in selfish and unjust behavior into one that ensures fairness for all. The veil of ignorance takes away peoples bias and forces them to view everyone as having equal rights to equal opportunities. The fact that this social contract and veil of ignorance are hypothetical makes it harder to accept this theory as being helpful and relevant. People are not behind a veil of ignorance. They do know where they stand in society and make their decisions based off of this. They have bias' and self interests and act on them even when it is unjust to others. When people know where they are in society they are not as sympathetic and aware of the positions of others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is true that the veil of ignorance is hypothetical, but it is only so to an extent. People are not actually behind veils of ignorance when dealing with issues such as gender and race, but they may actually be in more complex ways. The fact is that people don't know in advance exactly what their situations will be in the future. And as I know from my own experiences, things can change drastically in a second. For example, a person could be very wealthy but then lose their wealth due to another person's theft or actions or their own carelessness. While this person might know at one time where he stands in this regard, he has no definite idea of where things will stand in the future. In cases like these, a veil of ignorance of some type really does exist.
ReplyDeleteI think the veil of ignorance is a brilliant and (hypothetically) effective concept. However, as much as it would help to ensure fairness for even the lowest on the totem pole, I'm afraid that this result would still be due to human selfishness. If someone were put behind this veil of ignorance and forced to decide how readily available healthcare should be, he would assuredly make it easily attainable: not because it is fair, but because he is afraid that he might be disadvantaged and otherwise unable to get it. In this way, I'm afraid that whether the veil exists or not, people are still selfish. It just so happens that the presence of the veil could lead to a fairer world.
ReplyDeleteI am really glad you shared this view. I had not even considered that people would not see from another person's perspective or make decisions that are universally beneficial when they don't really even understand their own natures and needs and whatnot.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with Rochelle that veils of ignorance absolutely exist in real life, in some form or another. The first example that comes to mind would be joining a new community in a very different part of the world. That person in would be used to an entirely different way of thinking, which would make them ignorant to the perspective and thinking of this new society that they have now become a part of.