Reconsider the Construction of Original Position in a Theory of Justice

A Theory of Justice by John Rawls has been the most classical work in the field of contemporary political and moral philosophy. In this book, Rawls tries to build a system of normative ethics in which justice is placed as the first virtue of social institutions and the problem of justice can be settled through the social contract instead of a total utility maximizing utilitarianism. This leads to his two famous principles of justice: The Greatest Equal Liberty Principle and the Difference principle.

Rawls aims to construct a workable and systematic moral conception to oppose dominant utilitarianism and intuitionism by giving a more persuasive and comprehensive account of justice. Since there are too many complicated and morally irrelevant conditions like natural and social contingencies in the real world, he justifies his two principles by a hypothetical original position (OP). Everyone is allowed to experience this purely hypothetical experiment. And because the conditions of OP, in accordance with Rawls, is fair, weak and widely shared, any agreement derived from this initial status quo would be purely procedurally just. It is found that the individuals in OP would only choose RawlsÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ theory of justice as fairness to be their Ð'ÐŽÐ'ҐcontractÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦. As a result, the hypothetical choice chosen is the representation of consent. Differs from traditional contract theories, the relevant agreement is not to enter a given society or to adopt a given form of government, but to accept certain moral principles. Thus he succeeded in bringing a more general and universal view of moral concepts in subverting the utilitarian palace.

In this paper, I attempt to reconsider the elements and features of OP, which is the most important concept in RawlsÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ theory. Although he insists again and again that his design of the initial status is formed by commonly shared presumptions which enables fair bargains and a just rational choice to be carried out, I believe that there is a need to reexamine and question the reasonableness, neutrality and fairness of conditions of OP. My point of view is that, OP put forwarded by Rawls is strongly biased to a degree which even does not allow its rational individuals to choose fairly. To begin with, I start by giving a better picture of the components of OP.

John RawlsÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ Original Position

In the book, OP is defined as Ð'ÐŽÐ'Ґa status quo in which any agreements reached are fair, It is a state of affairs in which the parties are equally represented as moral persons and the outcome is not conditioned by arbitrary contingencies or the relative balance of social forces.Ð'ÐŽÐ'¦ To achieve this aim, he has created a highly specific and peculiar environment. In section 25 of A Theory of Justice, Rawls has given us a summary of the descriptions of his OP. However, I deem that it is not convenient for me to follow his arrangement to give elaboration in this short paper. Therefore, I adopt Shi YuankangÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s classification of the elements in OP for ease.

According to Shi, we may divide the elements into subjective one and objective one. Subjective conditions are the depictions of the parties and individuals in making the contract; Objective conditions, on the other hand, describe those conditions other than subjective one.

For subjective conditions, we may analyze how the individuals involved look like in OP from the angle of motivation, knowledge and beliefs, and rationality. First, the contractors are mutually disinterested in motivation. They try to advance their system of ends as far as possible. The contractors attempt to win the highest index of primary goods which is the foundations of their conceptions of goods. They are not intrigued by other peopleÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s interests. Use RawlsÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ words, Ð'ÐŽÐ'Ґthey just strive for as high an absolute score as possibleÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ ; second, the contractors are covered by a veil of ignorance in which most of the particular facts are not acknowledged. Situated behind the veil, the contractors do not have any idea of their place, social status, intelligence, strengthen and most importantly, their conception of the good. The only particular facts they know is the general facts about human society. They also know that their society is subject to the circumstances of justice and whatever this implies; third, individuals are rational and thereby willing to take effective means to ends with unified expectations and objective interpretation of probability. Finally, they will not be envious of their counterparts in OP.

For the objective conditions, Rawls introduces HumeÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s conditions of moderate scarcity. OP is a Ð'ÐŽÐ'Ґcircumstances of justiceÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ in which Ð'ÐŽÐ'Ґpersons put forward conflicting claims to the division of social advantages under conditions of moderate scarcityÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ Resources are scarce to fulfill everyoneÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s absolute wants but enough for individuals to corporate in order to gain more advantages.

Under this highly restricted hypothetical situation, according to RawlsÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ argument, principles of justice for the basic structure would be chosen. The first principle concerns the distribution of liberty which ensures that each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a like liberty for others; the second principle focuses on the distribution of social primary goods such as income, wealth and opportunitiesÐ'ÐŽKetc. which is a necessary basis for further an individualÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s particular conception of the good. Base on this principle, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity. And these principles have to be followed by the rule of priority of liberty and priority of justice over efficiency and welfare in lexical order. Violations of any of these principles and rules are to be seen as injustice. Ð'ÐŽÐ'ҐThey are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interest would accept in an initial position of equally as defining the fundamental terms of their associationÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦ . Therefore, the principles are the rational unanimous choice of the parties which provide the individuals a basic condition to realize different further interests.

Here I have given a very short introduction