Evaluating the Veil

Abstract

John Rawls was the most influential political philosopher of the 20th century. His magnum opus, A Theory of Justice, revolutionised moral and political philosophy by offering a deductive way out of the intellectually unsatisfying reliance on brute intuitionism while avoiding the pitfall of irrelevance by implausibility that had plagued other contract arguments. Rawls’s elegant, novel and innovative approach provided a parsimonious solution to the problem of distributive justice by using, mutatis mutandis, the familiar device of the social contract. His was an ambitious project that attempted to “provide a deductive basis for the principles that account for [our considered] judgements” (1971: p. 185). Indeed, Rawls stated categorically that his argument was meant to be “strictly deductive,” going as far as to say “we should strive for a kind of moral geometry with all the rigor which this name connotes” (p. 121). Rawls’ grand ambitions, however, did not long survive: under intellectual pressure from several directions he retreated into a somewhat relativistic intuitionism, saying he no longer wanted to discover universal moral principles, but rather principles ‘appropriate’ to modern democracies. I will not attempt engage with or summarize the vast literature of responses to A Theory of Justice that led Rawls down this path. Instead, I will diverge from the later Rawls and defend his original conclusion – i.e. his principles of justice –
while modifying parts of his argument. Specifically, I will argue that it is
crucial to notice that the veil of ignorance screens out two different types of
particular information: information about individuals and information about
society. A veil that screens out only the first type of information is a “thin”
veil, while one that screens out both the first and second types is a “thick”
veil. I will conclude that Rawls’ own methodological commitments – particularly, pure procedural justice – are compatible only with a thin veil of ignorance but, despite this, that broadly Rawlsian principles still emerge from the original position.