The Veil of Ignorance

The Original Position, or the "veil of ignorance," is a concept that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. At its core, the Original Position asks individuals to consider the principles that should govern society, as if they had no prior knowledge of their place within that society. This "veil of ignorance" removes any biases that may be present, as it prevents participants from knowing their ethnicity, social status, gender, or their own personal values.

The idea of the Original Position was first introduced by the American philosopher John Rawls, but has roots in the works of other philosophers such as William Vickrey and John Harsanyi. In Rawls' theory, the Original Position serves a similar purpose as the "state of nature" in the social contract theories of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke.

The Original Position has had a significant impact on a wide range of philosophical thought, and continues to be a subject of discussion and contemplation to this day.

The concept of the "veil of ignorance" has been debated by philosophers for centuries under different names, such as the "social contract" by John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant, the "impartial spectator" by Adam Smith, and the "ideal observer theory." John Harsanyi further formalized the concept in economics, arguing that it supports utilitarianism rather than a social contract. Harsanyi posited that a person in the Original Position, or veil of ignorance, would seek to maximize their expected utility rather than minimizing potential losses.

The term "veil of ignorance" was popularized by John Rawls in his book "A Theory of Justice," and modern discussions often center around the various decision theories that might apply to an individual making choices from behind the veil. Additionally, Michael Moehler has argued that, from a moral perspective, the veil of ignorance can take on many different forms depending on the underlying moral ideals assumed.

According to Rawls, the parties in the Original Position, or veil of ignorance, are concerned only with how primary social goods, such as basic rights and economic and social advantages, are distributed among citizens. Rawls also suggests that the representative parties in the Original Position would use the "maximin rule" to evaluate the options before them. This rule, borrowed from game theory, involves maximizing the minimum payoff for the least advantaged position. In this way, the maximin rule in the Original Position represents a form of social equality.

In social contract theory, individuals in a "state of nature" enter into a contract with each other to establish a civil society. For example, in the Lockean state of nature, parties agree to form a government with limited powers and a duty to protect the rights and property of citizens. In the Original Position, the representative parties choose principles of justice to govern the basic structure of society. Rawls argues that these parties would select two principles:

Each citizen is guaranteed a sufficient set of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same set of liberties for all others.

Social and economic inequalities must meet two conditions: they must benefit the least advantaged to the greatest extent possible (the "difference principle"), and they must be attached to positions and offices that are open to all.

The reason the least well-off members benefit is that, under the veil of ignorance, people are assumed to act as if they are risk-averse. The Original Position involves a unique and irrevocable choice regarding the most important social goods, but the parties do not know the probability that they will end up in any particular position in society. To protect against the worst possible outcome, they will choose rules that maximize benefits for the minimum outcome (maximin).

Recently, Thomas Nagel has further explored the concept of the Original Position, arguing that social ethics should take into account the tension between original and actual positions. The Original Position has also been mathematically modeled using Wright-Fisher's diffusion, a classical concept in population genetics. It has also been used as an argument for negative eugenics, although Rawls' argument was limited to its use as a preventive measure.

Robert Nozick, in his book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," disputes the idea that the Original Position is a just starting point, and argues that any inequalities resulting from free exchange after the Original Position are equally just. He also asserts that any redistributive taxes infringe on people's liberty. Nozick further contends that Rawls' application of the maximin rule in the Original Position is an extreme form of risk aversion and is therefore inappropriate even for those behind the veil of ignorance.

In "How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time," Iain King suggests that individuals in the Original Position should not be risk-averse, leading them to adopt the "Help Principle" (Help someone if your help is worth more to them than it is to you) instead of the maximin rule.

Michael Sandel, in "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice," criticizes Rawls' concept of the veil of ignorance, pointing out that it is impossible for an individual to completely set aside their beliefs and convictions, as required by Rawls' thought experiment. More recently, the psychological implausibility of Rawls' theory has been examined using the concept of possible worlds, highlighting problematic aspects of Rawls' proposal.

In an empirical research study, Frohlich, Oppenheimer, and Eavey found that in a simulated Original Position, individuals from a variety of temporal and cultural settings unanimously agreed upon a distributive principle that, in the vast majority of cases, maximizes the average with a specified floor constraint (a minimum for the least well-off in any given distribution). This finding suggests that resistance to a cosmopolitan application of justice as fairness may be less strong than previously thought, as the distributive principle agreed upon in the simulated Original Position is less demanding than Rawls' "difference principle."

In a nutshell, the Veil of Ignorance is a thought experiment developed by philosophers to help determine what principles should govern society. It involves imagining that you are choosing principles for the basic structure of society, but you must do so as if you had no knowledge of your own position in that society. This "veil of ignorance" removes any biases that may be present, as it prevents you from knowing your ethnicity, social status, gender, or personal values. The idea is that this forces individuals to select principles impartially and rationally. The Veil of Ignorance has been influential in a wide range of philosophical thought and continues to be a subject of discussion and contemplation.