Picture a perfect society. What does it look like? - Joseph Lacey
You and a group of strangers have been
gathered to design a just society.
And to ensure none of you rig the system
to benefit yourself,
you’ve all been placed
under a “veil of ignorance.”
Under this veil, you’re blind to certain
information about each other
and yourselves.
You don’t know your age or sex,
your profession or natural talents,
how much wealth you have,
or your religious
or philosophical beliefs.
So, according to political philosopher
John Rawls,
you should be motivated to consider
what’s most fair
for all your society's citizens.
When Rawls published this
thought experiment—
known as “the original position”—
in his 1971 opus “A Theory of Justice,”
he was trying to identify principles
to support a realistic utopia.
This visionary society would ensure
everyone had the resources
and opportunities required
to freely pursue their goals.
Rawls was confident these principles could
only be realized in a democracy.
But he felt existing social structures
weren’t the right path forward.
He believed free market philosophies
and welfare capitalism
led to unjust accumulations
of wealth and power.
And he saw models inspired by Marxism
as extreme reactions
to capitalism’s flaws,
with unrealistic assumptions
about economies and human nature.
So Rawls proposed a new kind of democracy.
One where no person was considered
less valuable than another
and all citizens could live
according to their own wills.
And while the details of this vision
can seem radical,
Rawls believed that,
under the veil of ignorance,
free and equal people would
unanimously agree to his fair society.
So, let’s play out this
thought experiment.
The first step in designing our society
is deciding how to distribute
what Rawls called primary goods.
These include the basic liberties,
opportunities, and wealth
necessary for pursuing most goals.
Rawls believed our justice-architects
would agree
to an “equal scheme
of basic liberties” for all,
including freedom of speech
and the freedom to associate
with whoever they choose.
After all, without the freedom
to pursue one's goals,
resources like wealth
and job opportunities lose their value.
Citizens would also have equal political
liberties to vote and run for office.
Next, Rawls believes the architects
would establish what he calls
“fair equality of opportunity.”
This means society must be arranged
so no one is unfairly deprived
of the resources necessary to compete
for valued jobs and other positions.
However, after agreeing upon equality
of liberty and opportunity,
Rawls believes our justice-architects
would see the benefits
of allowing for some wealth inequalities.
For example, greater profits
can incentivize innovation,
productivity, and investment.
But Rawls also believes our designers
would want to limit differences in wealth
with what he calls
“the difference principle.”
This states that wealth inequalities
are only acceptable
when they benefit
the least advantaged citizens,
making them better off than they’d be
under conditions of strict equality.
These tenets form the foundation
of Rawls’ just society,
and he believed they could be achieved
through what he called
“property owning democracy.”
This model would guarantee equal access
to education and healthcare
and rely on government regulation
to ensure a just distribution
of property and wealth.
Rawls knew fully adopting this approach
would require major changes
for existing democracies.
But he believed his principles
could at least inspire
some immediate improvements.
For example, Rawls advocated for limits
on campaign spending
and political contributions
to reduce the influence
of wealth on politics.
He also endorsed policies
fighting discrimination
and generous social safety nets
like unemployment benefits
to ensure a good situation
for the worst-off.
Some philosophers have
critiqued Rawls’ work.
Ronald Dworkin argues that
the difference principle
unfairly tethers society’s progress
to the status of the worst-off,
even if they’re in that position
because of their own choices.
Meanwhile, Martha Nussbaum believes
Rawls’ thought experiment
overlooks real-life particulars.
For example, the special needs
of a person with disabilities
might not be satisfied by the
standard distribution of primary goods.
And more generally,
some argue the architects in Rawls’
harmonious thought experiment
are simply too different
from the competing interests
building real societies.
But since its publication,
this thought experiment has inspired
some very real consequences.
Rawls’ rallying cry for social
and political equality
and a more justly regulated form
of capitalism
has impacted countless political
philosophers, activists, and policymakers.
And this new school of thought about
justice continues to challenge people
to look past their biases and consider
what a fair society might truly look like.
