The Veil of Ignorance - Assignment Example

ON RAWLS NTRODUCTION One of the challenges that confront human existence is the quest for a condition that will perpetuate and enhance human life. This challenge is continuously address on the supposition that “a human being can maintain his existence only when he has placed himself under particularly favorable conditions. These favorable conditions have been offered him by the social life” (Adler 1946: 28-29). And as such is the necessity for human social life, it is not surprising that scholars both in the past and in the present have laboriously tried to further clarify principles and frameworks that underlie human social life. Social contract is one paradigm formulated in understanding the coming together of different individuals. Generally, social contract is held to be the agreement among individuals to live harmoniously together as they pursue their good. This broad definition of the term implicitly shows the truism regarding human nature – human social life. In this paper, we will not be discussing any sociological or anthropological perspectives regarding the social aspects of human social life. Rather, we will be dealing with the philosophical discussions on how or in what way does Rawls’ social contract theory depart from other contractarian theory like that of John Locke. JOHN LOCKE’S SOCIAL CONTRACT John Locke’s social contract rests on the idea that free people need to agree on some ground rules in order to live together in peace and harmony. These ground rules are arrived at via the recognition of some innate deficiencies intrinsic in the state of nature which is “what state all men are naturally in and that is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of another man” (Locke 1964: 5). However, this state of perfect freedom is not a license on the individual to do anything that he/she wants. Rather, it is restricted by two factors: one is the allegiance to God who created us. And second is the presence of other human beings who just like us is a free and rational being. Moreover, Locke tried to take into account the notion of private property wherein he maintained that all human beings have the sole right and authority over the fruits of their labor. And nobody has any right to take it away from them which in turn give rise to the notion of private property. Recognizing the failure of being the executive of one’s life in the midst of all the other executives, Locke supports the notion, that human beings have created and established a government that will act to protect and secure the lives and properties of the people. As such, Locke’s social contract theory in a way affirms the conception that human beings enter into social contract not because they are a disinterested party but because they see it as a necessity in order to fulfill some vested interest – their self-interests. JOHN RAWLS’ SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY John Rawls social contract theory is a more modern version of the theory. It takes into consideration differences and pluralities existing among individuals. And this has been achieved by stipulating that the principle of justice is the fundamental principle in the creation of alternative system or society. But the entire process of arriving at a social union that upholds the principles of justice is process that starts with reflective equilibrium, rationality, original position, and the veil of ignorance. Reflective equilibrium is a “state where agents’ principles and judgments coincide since they are aware of the principles with which their judgments conform” (Rawls 1999: 18). Rationality is human beings ability to frame long-term life plans. Original position is a “purely hypothetical initial situation which best expresses the conditions that are widely thought reasonable to impose on the choice of principles yet which at the same time, leads top a conception that characterizes our considered judgments in the reflective equilibrium” (Rawls 1999: 105). Lastly, the Veil of Ignorance is the “condition in the original position wherein the parties have no knowledge of their situation in the society and their natural assets” (Rawls 1999: 121). Just like John Locke, John Rawls assume that individuals who enter into social contract are rational human beings. That is the only apparent similarity between the two social contract theorists. Why am I claiming this? In the first place, when Locke speaks of rationality, he is technically referring to the traditional understanding of rationality, which is humanity’s ability to formulate and make decisions. While on the other hand, when Rawls discusses rationality, he appreciates it as humanity’s ability to rationally come up with plans, short and long term plans, that will enable him/her to successfully achieve the good which according to Rawls is “the satisfaction of rational desires” (Section 15 p. 80). Thus, a person’s good is that which is needed for the successful execution of a rational long-term plan of life given favorable circumstances of liberty, opportunity, income, wealth and self respect. Further more, if good is technically understood as a rational person’s life plan, and then it is but expected that it should vary from one person to another. Thus, even on this definition alone, it appears that Rawls is implicitly telling us that ‘personal good’ is not a dependable gauged in the creation of a society. Rather, what he recommends is the concept of right, which is basically to be valued and regarded as that which is fair. Thus, moving away from the traditional and ordinary conception of right and “the broader notion of rightness as fairness is to be understood as a replacement for existing conceptions” (Rawls 1971: Section 18 p 95). Moreover, the concept of right is that which we set down in the social contract, it being the same for everyone as it is stipulated under the veil of ignorance. Second, when Locke spouses the idea of protection and security for the labor of our hands, for our properties and material wealth as the prime motivator for the coming together of human beings. Rawls supports the idea that people will come together as they are motivated by the principles of justice as they decide for that with which the community is to be established. This is maintained on the idea that Rawls sees the logic but denies the validity of the fact that human beings will always allocate things for themselves in the midst of scarce resources. For the reason that the moment we allow people to believe that their ethos for coming together is their greed or the satisfaction of their self-interest, then the possibility of striking the balance, of arriving at justice is minimize or even denied.. As such, Rawls claim that the two principles of justice, namely, liberty and distribution of wealth should be the guiding principles in the creation of society. He further maintains that there is a possibility that there may be instances when the two may conflict with one another but in all times Rawls maintain that priority of liberty should always be observed and that “liberty can only be restricted for the sake of liberty” (Section 39 p 214). For liberty is “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all”(Rawls 1999: Section 39 p 220). While at the same time Rawls’ position in the distribution of wealth is something noble and grand it being guided by the principle of efficiency and the difference principle. Under the principle of efficiency, Rawls asserts that the moment that there is inequality in opportunities, the opportunities of those with lesser opportunities must be enhanced. Thereby, presenting the belief that arrangement ought to improve the situation of some people with out worsening the conditions of other people. While the difference principle assumes an equal distribution should be preferred in a distribution that will make both person better off. Thus, by downplaying differences, what is implicitly presented is the upholding of egalitarian principle in the distribution of wealth. And that any inequalities in the distribution can only be justified on the grounds of efficiency. The concepts that Rawls are adhering to are something that we do not see in the modern discussion of Social contract. Indeed, Locke presented the notion of coming together of human beings. However, noticeable in their creation of society is the idea that each individual is technically still not part of the community. Since the community, subsist solely for the protection of each individual’s goods regardless whether there is a meeting of the goods. But in Rawls, his social contract theory makes each and every one of us responsible for one another. Neither out of passion nor overwhelming fear do we create a community but rather as rational beings we see the principles of justice as the necessary cornerstone of the system that will enable us apply and uphold the ‘concept of right’ which is the ‘concept of justice as fairness. Thereby, enabling all human beings access to all the social goods. As such, it goes beyond agreement to live together harmoniously. It is living and moving together in achieving the ‘good life’. These principles of justice are not something that is elucidated in Locke’s social contract. It does not mean though that Rawls’ is better compared with Locke. Perhaps it is more on we philosophers responding on the demand of times. During Locke’s’ time when people fought for their right to own property, Locke’s position paved the way for the viability of private property. In the contemporary period, when the concept of private property is deeply entrenched and when we see people who have much while there are many who are wallowing in abject poverty, Rawls did come up with the notion of justice that is understood and interpreted in the light of fairness. In the first two arguments we can see the difference and slow moving away of Rawls conception of social contract with that of Locke. The third concept, I believe, separated Rawls from Locke – the veil of ignorance in the original position. Under the veil of ignorance in the original position, Rawls is telling us that people who are driven by their self-interests, would come together, unaware of their status in life, their talents and personal situations and conditions in life. This he injected in his theory so that people will avoid any biases that might give them unfair advantage in the original position. The original position is the ahistorical moment when people under the veil of ignorance have created an alternative system that is anchored on the principles of justice, which is appreciated and comprehended in the light of the ‘concept of right’ as justice as fairness. The veil of ignorance is the crucial and significant factor that will allow agents, people to make decisions that take into consideration that which is good for the community as a whole disregarding their own self-interest. Since the veil of ignorance by “eliminating knowledge of personal characteristics eliminates the possibility of bias in favor of those characteristics and thus enforces the kind of impartiality or disinterestedness that is held integral to a moral perspective” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The veil of ignorance allows Rawls social contract theory to move away from the traditional paradigm of social contract – self-interest. In Rawls’ social contract, we see the possibility of people coming together without the baggages that differentiates each and every one of us. It acknowledges the plurality that is deeply entrenched in the contemporary world. Yet at the same time it affords us an alternative, a possibility of being able to come and meet at a certain point wherein that which we use in judgment making are thrown away and only that which is universal, general in form is retained – justice with liberty and equitable distribution of wealth as its guiding principles. In the end, Rawls’ departure from Locke stems from the basic idea that Rawls has moved away from the individualistic, liberal framework of which Locke’s theory has always been associated. Though, Rawls’ theory is still contractarian and in spite of everything is plague by the problem of individualism, what his theory offers us is a viable option of the possibility of the meeting of communitarianism and individualism and liberalism at a common point. Moreover, the fact that Rawls’ theory of justice highlights and demonstrates the truism that human beings do not subsist by themselves. The integral interaction between people in the society and innate individual characteristics are those, which defines human nature, human life. REFERENCE: Adler, Alfred. Understanding Human Nature. New York: Greenberg, 1946. Locke, John. Of Civil Government. Introduction by Russell Kirk. Chicago: A Gateway Edition, 1964. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999. “The Veil of Ignorance” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. www.plato.stanford.org. Retrieved on November 17,2006. Read More