Philo stands at a large circular table in a sunlit seminar room, arranging cards face-down in concentric rings. Each card hides a different social role — doctor, farmworker, refugee, senator, student with a disability — while Philo gestures toward an empty chair and invites the learner to sit before any card is turned over.
Explain John Rawls's thought experiment called the Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance.
Identify the three lexically ordered principles of justice Rawls argues rational people would select from behind the Veil.
Compare the Rawlsian approach to fairness with the view that justice simply protects existing property and social positions.
Evaluate a proposed social policy by applying the Difference Principle as a decision criterion.
Predict how knowledge of one's own social position might bias choices about distributive justice.
Key terms
Original Position
Rawls's hypothetical starting point from which rational parties choose the principles of justice for their society.
Veil of Ignorance
The condition of choosing principles without knowing one's own social position, wealth, talents, or identity.
Difference Principle
The rule permitting social and economic inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
Lexical priority
The strict ranking placing liberty first, then fair equality of opportunity, then the Difference Principle, with no trade-offs across tiers.
Maximin
The cautious heuristic of selecting the option whose worst possible outcome is the best, used to support the Difference Principle under uncertainty.
Why the Veil Produces Fairness
The Veil of Ignorance works by neutralizing self-interest at the moment principles are chosen. Behind it you remain rational and want a good outcome for yourself, but because you do not know whether you will be rich or poor, able-bodied or disabled, majority or persecuted minority, you cannot rig the rules to favor a group you already belong to. This forces genuine impartiality: the only way to protect yourself when you might be anyone is to protect everyone, especially the worst-off. Fairness, for Rawls, is precisely what rational choosers would agree to from this position of enforced ignorance.
The Strict Ranking of Principles
Rawls's principles are lexically ordered, meaning they are ranked in a fixed sequence that cannot be traded off against one another. The Equal Liberty Principle comes first: basic liberties such as speech, conscience, and due process are guaranteed and cannot be surrendered for economic gain, no matter how large. Fair Equality of Opportunity comes second: positions must be genuinely open to all with equal talent and motivation. Only after both are secured does the Difference Principle govern remaining inequalities. This ordering is essential — applying the Difference Principle while ignoring liberty or opportunity is a misreading of Rawls, not an application of him.
Inequality That Helps the Worst-Off
The Difference Principle is the most misread part of Rawls. It does not demand equal outcomes; it permits inequality, but only on a strict condition: an inequality is just only if it makes the least advantaged group better off than they would be under a more equal arrangement. Higher pay for scarce, productive work can be justified if it grows the resources available to lift the floor. The decisive question for any policy is therefore not 'does this create inequality?' but 'does this inequality actually improve the position of the worst-off compared to the alternatives?'
Worked examples
A nation considers cutting top tax rates, claiming the resulting growth will eventually help everyone. Apply Rawls.
Confirm the prior tiers: check that basic liberties and Fair Equality of Opportunity are already secured, since the Difference Principle is only reached after both — lexical priority forbids skipping them.
State the Difference Principle test correctly: the inequality (lower taxes for the top) is just only if it genuinely improves the long-term position of the least advantaged.
Demand evidence, not promises: 'growth will trickle down eventually' is a prediction; Rawls requires showing the policy actually raises the floor more than the best alternative use of those funds would.
Reach the conditional verdict: if the evidence shows the worst-off end up better than under alternatives, the inequality passes; if not, it fails, regardless of total wealth generated.
Answer: The policy is just on Rawlsian grounds only if it demonstrably leaves the least advantaged better off than the best alternative would — total growth alone is insufficient, and liberty and opportunity must already be secured first.
Let me set the scene.
Imagine you have to write the rules for an entire society — tax policy, healthcare access, education funding, legal rights — but there is one catch: you do not yet know who you will be once the rules take effect. You might be born wealthy or impoverished, talented or average, healthy or chronically ill, in the majority or a persecuted minority. You are designing the rules from behind what philosopher John Rawls called the Veil of Ignorance.
Rawls introduced this thought experiment in A Theory of Justice (1971, revised 1999) to strip away the self-interest that normally colors our moral reasoning. The situation before the rules are set is called the Original Position. Every participant in the Original Position is rational — they want the best outcome for themselves — but none of them can game the system by writing rules that privilege the group they already belong to, because they do not know what group that is.
From this impartial standpoint, Rawls argues, rational people would converge on two principles — and the order in which those principles rank matters as much as the principles themselves.
First, the Equal Liberty Principle: each person is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties (speech, conscience, due process, political participation) compatible with the same scheme for everyone else. Rawls revised this phrasing in the 1999 edition of his book, replacing an earlier formulation that called for the 'most extensive' liberties, because maximizing each liberty independently can create conflicts between them. No one behind the Veil would gamble away fundamental rights in exchange for economic gain, because they might end up needing those rights most.
Second, Rawls splits what is sometimes loosely called 'the second principle' into two distinct, lexically ordered parts:
(2a) Fair Equality of Opportunity (FEO): positions and offices in society must be genuinely open to all persons who have the same talent and motivation, regardless of their social class or background. A society may not reserve opportunities for those lucky enough to be born into the right family.
(2b) The Difference Principle: once fair equality of opportunity is satisfied, social and economic inequalities in wealth and income are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
Lexical priority means these three tiers are ranked in strict order and are not interchangeable. Liberty comes first and cannot be traded away for greater wealth or opportunity. Fair Equality of Opportunity comes second and cannot be sacrificed for economic gain. Only after both are secured does the Difference Principle govern how inequalities may be arranged. This ordering is not negotiable within Rawls's system — it is built into the structure of the Original Position argument.
Why would rational people choose this structure? Rawls appeals to a decision heuristic called maximin: when outcomes are deeply uncertain and the stakes are extremely high, a cautious chooser focuses on making the worst-case outcome as good as possible. Behind the Veil, you might end up at the very bottom of society, so you have reason to insist on a floor — a guaranteed minimum of liberty, opportunity, and material well-being. Note that Rawls uses maximin as a supporting argument for why rational choosers would favor the Difference Principle under uncertainty; it is a heuristic suited to the specific conditions of the Original Position, not a general decision procedure he endorses for all situations.
A classic challenge to Rawls comes from libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who argues that justice is about protecting freely made transactions, not redistributing outcomes. Rawls responds that we cannot call a distribution 'freely made' if it starts from morally arbitrary facts — like the family you were born into.
Key terms: Original Position (the hypothetical starting point), Veil of Ignorance (the condition of not knowing your own social identity), Fair Equality of Opportunity (genuine openness of positions regardless of background), Difference Principle (inequalities must benefit the least advantaged), Lexical Priority (the strict ranking — liberty first, then FEO, then DP), Maximin (the heuristic of protecting the worst-case outcome, which Rawls uses to support the Difference Principle in the Original Position).
Activity
Sort each proposed policy into 'Passes the Veil Test' or 'Fails the Veil Test' by deciding whether a rational person behind the Veil of Ignorance would agree to it — then rank the passing policies from most to least Rawlsian. Note: some policies may require you to state your reasoning, because the Rawlsian verdict depends on how well the policy satisfies Fair Equality of Opportunity before the Difference Principle is applied.
Practice
Design one social policy and argue whether a rational chooser behind the Veil of Ignorance would accept it.
Explain how Rawls would respond to Nozick's claim that justice only protects freely made transactions.
Common mistakes to avoid
Rawls demands strictly equal incomeThe Difference Principle permits inequalities, requiring only that they improve the position of the least advantaged.
Liberty can be traded for greater wealthLexical priority makes basic liberties first and non-negotiable, so they cannot be surrendered for any economic gain.
Check your understanding
A classmate says: 'Rawls just wants total equality — everyone should have exactly the same income.' Which response best corrects this misreading of Rawls?
Rawls ranks his principles in strict lexical order. What does this ordering mean for a policy that would increase overall wealth but require limiting free speech for a minority group?
A new law gives large tax breaks to corporations with the stated goal that corporate profits will eventually raise wages for all workers. Applying Rawls's Difference Principle, what question must be answered before this policy can be called just?
Recap
Rawls argues that rational people choosing behind a Veil of Ignorance would adopt lexically ordered principles — equal liberty first, then fair equality of opportunity, then a Difference Principle allowing only inequalities that benefit the least advantaged — making impartiality, not equal outcomes, the heart of justice as fairness.
Reflect
If you did not know your place in society, which rule would you most insist upon?
Philosophy Ethics