The veil of ignorance
Definition
The twenty civilians selected to go and live on the Mars colony were set an unusual task. On the red planet there would be a number of goods, including accommodation, food, drink and luxury items. They had to decide, before they went out, on what basis those goods would be distributed. But, crucially, they did not know what the most important tasks would be on the colony. All the work could be manual, or none of it. It might require great intelligence, it might be better suited to those less in need of mental stimulation. The first suggestion made was that everything should be shared equally: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. But then someone raised an objection. If there was lots of work to be done and someone refused to do their share, wouldn’t it be unfair to reward them with an equal slice of the cake? Surely there needed to be an incentive to contribute? The objection was accepted, but that just seemed to lead to more problems. Fairness did not appear to mean the same as giving everyone the same. But what then did it mean?
Source
Chapter 3 of A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (Harvard University Press, 1971)
Motivation & Background
According to the political philosopher John Rawls, although the colonists do not yet know what fairness is, they are in the ideal position to find out. For they are making their decisions about the right way to distribute goods behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ that leaves them in the dark as to how easily they will cope with life on the colony. That means we can trust their decisions to be totally impartial. For example, since no one knows whether intellectual or physical work will be more valuable on Mars, the colonisers should not gamble on a system whereby either type of work is better remunerated. That would lead them to treat those with different skills the same, which seems to be very fair indeed. Rawls thought that if we want to know what fairness is on Earth, we should imagine ourselves to be in a similar position. The key difference is that we should also imagine that we do not know whether we will be smart or stupid, dextrous or clumsy, fit or sickly. That way we will be able to come up with rules to determine how to distribute goods which are completely fair and do not discriminate against anyone. Rawls thought that if we undertook this process rationally, we would end up with a system in which we always make sure the worst off are as well off as possible. This is because we would not know if we would ourselves be on society’s scrapheap. Therefore we would prudently make sure that, if we were among the unfortunate, we would still have as much as possible. All this leads to a traditional form of liberal social democracy, in which some variations in fortune are allowed, just as long as it is not to the cost of the least fortunate. Is this really fair or rational, though? How do we respond to the person who argues that there is nothing unfair in allowing the least capable to sink? Or what about the claim that it is perfectly rational to gamble on being one of life’s winners rather than play safe and vote for a society in which the losers are protected as much as possible? Are we failing to be impartial if we take as our guiding principle what would happen to us in this society, rather than simply considering what is fair and just? Fans of Rawls believe the veil of ignorance is the best device we have for deciding what a fair society would look like. Critics say that it does no such thing: when we go behind the veil we simply take our existing political views and prejudices and make our decisions accordingly. It can therefore be seen as either the most useful or useless thought experiment in the history of political philosophy.
