The Original Position

Rawls describes an “original position”, in which representatives with limited information about the interests that they represent attempt to agree as to how society should be ordered. Rawls’ suggestion is that whatever principles such representatives would agree to have legitimacy, and argues that two principles in particular would emerge with a consensus.

In the original position, rational agents, each representing an individual in society are gathered together to decide how society should be ordered. Each agent is concerned solely with the interests of the person that he represents, but must negotiate from behind a “veil of ignorance”. This veil of ignorance means that he does not know the background or situation of his client; he must negotiate blind.

Rawls also introduces the further restriction that the representatives have no pre-conceived ideas on subjects such as justice or the good. In the original position all the representatives are motivated, open-minded and rational; this is why just and fair principles on which to base society will result.

Rawls’ motivation for placing such strong conditions on the representatives in the original position give the thought-experiment its justificatory role. The representatives are self-interested in recognition of the fact that we can all make claims on society. We have rights that must be respected, and in stipulating that the interests of the individual are to be the sole concern of each representative Rawls ensures that everyone receives individual attention.

The representatives must negotiate from behind a veil of ignorance to ensure that they do not discriminate against groups on the basis of arbitrary characteristics. If a representative knew that the individual he was representing was a middle-class, white male then, given that the interests of his client are his sole concern, he would have no objection to the enslavement of other ethnic groups, restricting the rights of women and the existence of huge pay differentials between company executives and shop-floor workers. Denying this knowledge to the representatives means that they must consider all possibilities on the lifting the veil of ignorance, and so respect the rights and needs of every member of society.

Finally, Rawls’ insistence that representatives have no idealistic pre-conceptions helps to preserve the fairness of the situation above. It is a demand for open-mindedness and impartiality. If a representative had a specific opinion as to what would count as worthwhile goals then the principles he would support could be biased in favour of those who share his opinion. This would mean that someone with goals that do not match those of one of the representatives could have his claims on society ignored. This, says Rawls, would be unacceptable.

It is Rawls’ claim that all of the representatives would agree to two principles. The first of these is a principle of equal liberty which ensures that no client is disadvantaged by factors such as race, gender or class, that all members of society enjoy the freedom necessary to pursue their goals, whatever they may be. Rawls’ second principle is the difference principle, which permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society.