Rawls's Original Position - Philosophy

1. The justification for the principles of justice provided by the original position argument is best characterized as which type of justification?
   Answer: A demonstration that these principles are the ones that would be chosen in a hypothetical social contract under conditions of fairness. When you encounter questions about Rawls' theory of justice, focus on the distinctive method he uses to justify his principles—the original position thought experiment. Answer A correctly captures Rawls' approach. The original position is a hypothetical scenario where rational people choose principles of justice from behind a "veil of ignorance," not knowing their place in society, talents, or circumstances. This ensures fairness because no one can bias the choice toward their own advantage. The justification comes from showing that his two principles of justice (equal basic liberties and the difference principle) would emerge from this fair choosing situation. It's a contractual justification—these principles are legitimate because they would be agreed upon under conditions of fairness. Answer B describes natural law theory or divine command theory, not Rawls' secular, contractual approach. Rawls doesn't appeal to transcendent moral laws or divine authority. Answer C mischaracterizes Rawls' method as empirical. While Rawls considers real-world applications, his justification is philosophical, not based on historical generalizations about successful societies. Answer D suggests moral intuitionism—that principles are self-evidently true to rational beings. Rawls explicitly rejects this approach, arguing instead that we need the artificial constraints of the original position to reach fair principles, precisely because our natural intuitions are biased by our circumstances. Remember: Rawls' original position is about hypothetical choice under fair conditions, not empirical observation, divine revelation, or direct intuition. The "contractual" aspect is key to identifying questions about his theory.
2. Consider the logical steps in a Rawlsian argument. (1) Parties are placed in a situation of radical uncertainty about their personal attributes. (2) This uncertainty forces them to consider the possibility that they could be in the worst-off position in society. (3) Therefore, they choose principles that would protect their interests in that worst-case scenario. This chain of reasoning provides a justification for which of the following?
   Answer: A robust social safety net and the principle that inequalities must benefit the least advantaged. This question traces the logic from the veil of ignorance (Step 1) to the maximin reasoning it encourages (Step 2) to the concrete policy implications (Step 3). The conclusion of this reasoning is the selection of the difference principle, which holds that social and economic inequalities are only justified if they work to the advantage of the worst-off members of society. This directly implies the need for institutions like a robust social safety net. (A) and (B) are specifically what this line of reasoning is designed to rule out, as they both entail unacceptable risks from the perspective of someone who might end up at the bottom. (D) would be rejected because notions of virtue or birth are precisely the kind of arbitrary factors the veil of ignorance is meant to nullify.
3. Of the following proposed principles for governing a society, which one would the parties in the original position be most certain to reject?
   Answer: Political power and economic advantage should be distributed according to noble birth and ancestry. The most certain rejection would be of a principle based on aristocracy or caste (D). The veil of ignorance makes it impossible for anyone to know their birth or ancestry. Therefore, no rational person would agree to a principle that might permanently assign them to a lower class based on a factor they cannot control. It is the clearest example of a principle based on morally arbitrary contingencies. While Rawls also argues they would reject utilitarianism (C), the case is more complex. The rejection of aristocracy is more direct and fundamental to the very structure of the thought experiment. (A) and (B) are, of course, components of the principles Rawls argues they would accept.
4. Behind the veil of ignorance, parties aim to secure for themselves the largest possible share of 'social primary goods.' Why do they focus on these goods rather than on happiness or well-being directly?
   Answer: Because primary goods are all-purpose means necessary for pursuing almost any conception of the good life. Primary goods (rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, etc.) are what Rawls calls 'all-purpose means.' They are things that any rational person is presumed to want, regardless of their specific life plan or 'conception of the good.' By focusing on these, the parties can make a rational choice even without knowing their personal goals. They are choosing the background conditions that will best enable them to pursue whatever ends they happen to have once the veil is lifted. (A) is too strong; people value many things, but primary goods are the necessary means to pursue them. (B) is part of the reason, but (C) is more precise about the positive role of primary goods. (D) is incorrect; social cooperation, which the principles are meant to govern, is not a zero-sum game.
5. Rawls stipulates that the parties in the original position are 'mutually disinterested.' How does this assumption about their motivation function within the thought experiment?
   Answer: It prevents the parties from being swayed by sentiments like pity or envy, focusing them on securing the highest possible index of primary goods for themselves. 'Mutually disinterested' means that the parties are primarily concerned with advancing their own interests (securing primary goods), not with helping or harming others. They are not driven by benevolence, but neither are they driven by envy or spite. This assumption simplifies the motivational structure and focuses the choice on a rational assessment of principles based on how well they secure one's own position, whatever it may turn out to be. (A) is incorrect as Rawls explicitly states the parties are not envious. (B) is the opposite of the assumption. (D) is incorrect because while they are self-interested, they are also rational, and they recognize that social cooperation is necessary to advance their interests.
6. A common misinterpretation of Rawls's veil of ignorance is that it renders the parties completely ignorant. However, Rawls specifies that they retain certain types of knowledge. The possession of which of the following would be permissible for a party in the original position?
   Answer: Knowledge of general laws of human psychology and the principles of economic theory. The parties behind the veil are denied particular knowledge about themselves and their society, but they retain general knowledge. This includes an understanding of political affairs, economic principles, and the laws of human psychology. This general knowledge is crucial for them to be able to evaluate and choose between different principles of justice and understand their likely consequences. (A), (B), and (D) are all examples of particular facts that are explicitly hidden by the veil to prevent bias and ensure impartiality.
7. Rawls's first principle of justice, the principle of equal basic liberties, is given 'lexical priority' over the second principle. From the perspective of the original position, what is the best justification for this prioritization?
   Answer: The parties recognize that once a certain level of material well-being is reached, they would not trade away fundamental rights for further economic gains. When you encounter questions about Rawls's theory of justice, focus on the logic of the original position—a hypothetical scenario where rational people choose principles of justice from behind a "veil of ignorance," not knowing their place in society. Rawls argues that parties in the original position would give lexical priority to equal basic liberties because they would recognize a crucial threshold effect in human welfare. Once people achieve a reasonable level of material security, they wouldn't be willing to sacrifice fundamental freedoms like speech, religion, or political participation for additional wealth. This reflects the diminishing marginal utility of material goods compared to the absolute importance of basic liberties for human dignity and self-realization. Answer A captures this reasoning perfectly. Answer B incorrectly suggests the priority is instrumental—that political liberties are just tools for economic success. Rawls's argument is that liberties have intrinsic value worth protecting regardless of economic consequences. Answer C misrepresents Rawls's position by claiming liberty maximization leads to optimal economic outcomes. Rawls explicitly rejects this utilitarian logic, focusing instead on what rational people would choose given uncertainty about their social position. Answer D completely contradicts Rawls's framework by suggesting majority tyranny could be justified for economic gains. This violates the entire purpose of lexical priority, which protects individual rights from being traded away. Remember: Rawls's lexical ordering reflects a hierarchy of human needs—once basic material security is met, fundamental liberties become non-negotiable because they're essential to human agency and dignity.
8. A highly talented musician argues that society's principles of justice should ensure that artistic geniuses receive a disproportionately large share of resources, because their contributions create immense cultural value. From a Rawlsian perspective, why is this argument procedurally flawed at its very foundation?
   Answer: Because it relies on knowledge of one's own talents and social position, which is information made unavailable by the veil of ignorance. When you encounter questions about John Rawls' theory of justice, focus on his central procedural device: the "veil of ignorance." This thought experiment requires people to choose principles of justice without knowing their own talents, social position, wealth, or other personal characteristics that might bias their decisions. The musician's argument is procedurally flawed because it violates this fundamental requirement. By arguing that artistic geniuses deserve disproportionate resources, the musician is making this claim while knowing he possesses artistic talent. Under Rawls' veil of ignorance, you wouldn't know whether you're the talented musician or someone with different abilities entirely. This knowledge of one's own position creates exactly the kind of bias Rawls designed his procedure to eliminate. Looking at the wrong answers: Option B misses the procedural flaw entirely—Rawls isn't primarily concerned with ranking different types of contributions, but with fair procedures for decision-making. Option C confuses Rawlsian justice with utilitarian thinking; Rawls doesn't base justice on maximizing average happiness but on what rational people would choose under fair conditions. Option D focuses on emotional bias, but the fundamental problem isn't the musician's emotions—it's that he's reasoning from behind knowledge of his own advantaged position. Remember this pattern: Rawlsian questions often test whether you can identify violations of the veil of ignorance. Any argument that relies on knowing your own talents, social class, or personal characteristics fails Rawls' procedural test, regardless of how compelling the argument might otherwise seem.
9. A political theorist argues: 'The purpose of the veil of ignorance is to ensure that the principles chosen will lead to a society where all citizens have roughly equal levels of wealth and happiness.' This interpretation mistakes the aim of the original position. What is the more accurate aim?
   Answer: To justify principles that provide a fair background framework of rights and opportunities, within which inequalities may arise. The original position is not meant to guarantee equality of outcome (equal wealth or happiness). Instead, it aims to identify fair principles for the basic structure of society. These principles—equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle—create a fair starting point and a social safety net. Within this framework, different individuals will achieve different levels of success based on their choices and (constrained) talents. The goal is fairness of the system, not equality of results. (A) is what Rawls argues against; natural talents are seen as morally arbitrary. (C) describes utilitarianism, which Rawls rejects. (D) is incorrect because Rawls's approach is constructivist, meaning the principles are justified because they would be chosen in a fair procedure, not because they reflect an independent moral reality.
10. Within the original position, the 'rationality' of the parties is a crucial assumption. This should be understood as a specific, technical kind of rationality. It means the parties...
    Answer: take the most effective means to achieve their given ends, which in this case is to maximize their share of primary goods. The rationality assumed in the original position is instrumental rationality, a concept from economics and decision theory. It means that the parties are able to rank their preferences (they want more primary goods rather than less) and will choose the actions (or principles) that are most likely to achieve those ends. It does not mean they are morally perfect, emotionally empathetic, or omniscient. It is a 'thin' theory of rationality focused on effective means-end reasoning. (A) is incorrect because they are choosing principles of morality, not starting with them. (B) is incorrect because they are assumed to be mutually disinterested, not empathetic. (D) is incorrect because the entire setup depends on their lack of information (the veil of ignorance).
11. A society has two education policies. Policy X ensures that all public schools are funded equally, but allows wealthy parents to send their children to exclusive private schools. Policy Y, while maintaining public schools, heavily taxes private school tuition to fund supplementary educational programs for disadvantaged children. From the original position, why would parties likely favor a policy more akin to Y over X?
    Answer: Because Policy Y better embodies the principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity by mitigating the effects of social class on life prospects. Rawls's second principle of justice includes not just the difference principle, but also the principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity (FEO). FEO is more demanding than 'formal' equality of opportunity (which just prohibits legal discrimination). FEO requires that individuals with the same level of talent and ambition should have the same prospects of success, regardless of their initial social class. Policy X, by allowing wealth to purchase a significantly better education, violates FEO. Policy Y is an attempt to move closer to FEO by actively working to lessen the impact of social background on educational opportunity. Parties in the OP would favor this because they would not want their life chances determined by the family they happen to be born into. (B) misstates the conclusion; they would not favor violating liberty. (C) is an efficiency argument that ignores the demands of justice. (D) is a key distinction; they reject merely formal equality in favor of the more substantive fair equality.
12. How does Rawls's original position differ fundamentally from a traditional state of nature argument as found in the works of Hobbes or Locke?
    Answer: The original position is a thought experiment designed to model fair choice conditions, whereas the state of nature describes a pre-social condition of conflict or inconvenience. The most significant difference is that the original position is a purely hypothetical 'device of representation' or thought experiment. It is not intended as an account of a pre-social or historical condition. Its purpose is to model the constraints on fair reasoning about justice. In contrast, state of nature theories, while also hypothetical, are meant to describe what life would be like without government, thereby justifying the state's existence. (A) reverses the roles. (B) is incorrect; the veil of ignorance in the OP conceals personal attributes. (D) mischaracterizes the goals; the OP leads to a robust welfare state, while state of nature theorists like Locke and Hobbes were justifying different forms of government, with Locke, in particular, leaning towards a more limited state.
13. In Rawls's original position, the veil of ignorance is said to conceal from the deliberating parties all particular facts about themselves. Which of the following best explains the primary philosophical function of this constraint?
    Answer: To model a situation of pure procedural justice, where the fairness of the procedure itself guarantees the fairness of the resulting principles, irrespective of prior moral commitments. The primary function of the veil of ignorance is to create a fair choice situation. By denying the parties knowledge of their own social position, talents, or conception of the good, the veil ensures that they cannot tailor principles to their own advantage. This makes the original position a model of 'pure procedural justice,' where the fairness of the setup (the procedure) ensures the justice of the outcome (the chosen principles). (A) is incorrect because the parties are motivated by rational self-interest (to secure primary goods for themselves), not altruism. The veil structures this self-interest to produce impartial outcomes. (C) is a misrepresentation; Rawls designs the original position specifically to argue against utilitarianism, as parties would not risk being in a disadvantaged minority for the sake of greater overall utility. (D) is incorrect because the parties are not skeptics; they have access to general facts about economics, psychology, and society, which are necessary to choose principles intelligently.
14. The principles of justice chosen in the original position are intended to apply to a specific subject. What does Rawls identify as the 'primary subject' of justice?
    Answer: The basic structure of society, meaning its major political and social institutions. Rawls is explicit that the principles of justice selected in the original position are meant to regulate the 'basic structure of society.' This refers to the way major social institutions (the political constitution, the legal system, the economy, the family) fit together into one system and distribute fundamental rights and duties. (A) is incorrect because Rawlsian justice is not primarily about individual virtue ethics. (C) is a separate topic (international justice), which Rawls addresses later with a different application of the original position. (D) is too narrow; the principles are not about a specific distribution (like cutting a cake) but about the ongoing rules and institutions that produce distributions over time.
15. Rawls argues that the conditions of the original position, particularly the uncertainty created by the veil of ignorance, lead the parties to adopt a 'maximin' reasoning strategy. Which of the following principles is a direct consequence of this strategy?
    Answer: The difference principle, because it arranges inequalities so that the worst-off position is as good as it can possibly be. Maximin stands for 'maximize the minimum.' It's a risk-averse strategy where one chooses the option with the best worst-case outcome. Behind the veil, a party does not know if they will end up in the best-off or worst-off position. A rational, risk-averse person, Rawls argues, would want to guarantee the best possible outcome for themselves if they end up at the bottom. The difference principle, which requires that social and economic inequalities must be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society, directly embodies this maximin logic. (A) is what Rawls argues against; utilitarianism could lead to a terrible outcome for a minority, a risk the parties would not take. (B) would be a risk-seeking (maximax) strategy, not a risk-averse one. (D) is incorrect because Rawls believes the parties would permit inequalities if those inequalities improved the condition of the worst-off (e.g., by providing incentives that grow the economy for everyone).
16. Imagine a committee is tasked with designing the principles for distributing a newly discovered, life-saving medical treatment. According to a strict application of Rawls's original position, which of the following considerations must the committee disregard?
    Answer: The fact that the committee members themselves are predominantly doctors and might benefit from principles that favor medical professionals. The veil of ignorance is designed to nullify the effects of specific contingencies and arbitrary advantages. The fact that the committee members are doctors is a particular fact about them that could bias their decision-making. They might be tempted to create principles that benefit their own group. A Rawlsian approach requires them to ignore this fact about themselves. (A), (C), and (D) are all examples of the general knowledge (about biology, economics, and psychology) that parties in the original position are allowed to have to make an informed decision.
17. A society is considering a new economic policy. Projections show it will increase the wealth of the richest 10% by 50% and the wealth of the middle 80% by 20%, but it will decrease the wealth of the poorest 10% by 5%. From the standpoint of the original position, what is the most likely reason this policy would be rejected?
    Answer: Because the policy violates the difference principle by making the least-advantaged group worse off than they were before. The second principle of justice states that inequalities are permissible only if they are to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged (the difference principle). Since this policy makes the least-advantaged group worse off, it would be rejected by parties in the original position, who use maximin reasoning and would not consent to principles that could worsen their situation if they ended up at the bottom. (A) is incorrect because Rawls is not a strict egalitarian; inequalities are allowed if they satisfy the difference principle. (B) is incorrect because Rawls assumes the parties are not motivated by envy. (C) is incorrect because even though the policy likely increases average utility, the parties reject the principle of utility itself as a basis for justice because it could lead to outcomes like this where a minority is sacrificed.
18. While Rawls's original position is a powerful tool for thinking about domestic justice, its initial formulation in A Theory of Justice is not intended to resolve all moral questions. Which of the following issues of justice would be most difficult to address using only the initial setup of the original position?
    Answer: Formulating principles of justice to govern society's obligations to future generations. The initial setup of the original position assumes the parties are contemporaries. They are choosing principles for the society in which they will live. This makes it difficult to model obligations to future generations, as the parties are not directly motivated to care about people who will live long after they are gone. Rawls recognized this problem and later suggested modifications (like assuming the parties are heads of families who care for their descendants) to address intergenerational justice. The other options, (A), (B), and (C), all fall squarely within the primary subject of the original position: determining the principles of justice for the basic structure of a single, self-contained society.
19. One of the most crucial pieces of information hidden by the veil of ignorance is one's 'conception of the good.' Why is ignorance of this particular feature so essential for Rawls's project of justifying principles of justice?
    Answer: Because it prevents individuals from choosing principles that unfairly favor their own particular religious, philosophical, or moral doctrines. A conception of the good refers to an individual's idea of what is valuable in life—their goals, religious beliefs, and philosophical commitments. In a pluralistic society, people have different and often conflicting conceptions of the good. If parties in the original position knew their own conception, they would be tempted to choose principles that favor it (e.g., a devout Catholic might favor principles that advantage Catholicism). By hiding this information, the veil forces the parties to choose principles that are fair to all citizens, regardless of their particular beliefs. This justifies the priority of the right over the good. (A) is the opposite of the intended outcome. (C) is incorrect; precisely because they might have deep convictions, they choose to protect liberties like freedom of conscience for everyone. (D) is contrary to the premise of reasonable pluralism that Rawls accepts.

Start this quiz