According to Rawls, justice is the outcome of a fair contract. However, for Rawls a contract is guaranteed to be fair only if the contracting parties are not able to take advantage of each other. Rawls therefore proposes that the principles of justice are the outcome of a special, hypothetical contract, concluded between behind a “veil of ignorance,” where no one knows any of his personal qualities, strengths, or weaknesses.
Is this the right way to think about principles of justice?
Should we abstract from our personal qualities, strengths, and aspirations in choosing principles of justice to govern our society?
Do you think that you should be able to make reference to your religious beliefs, or your life goals, when proposing rules for society? Is it even possible to make such an important decision without knowing who you are and what goals and beliefs you have?
As a matter of justice, should laws always be blind to the differences between people?
Rawls 'thought experiment' provides a useful format for making political decisions but it is ultimately impossible to do in the real world. Our environments and beliefs are too inextricably linked to who we are to be completely ignored. This fact, however, does not reduce the value of making the attempt. Ideologues make for bad policy-makers (although they often make great politicans) precisely because they rely on 'individual' beliefs and experiences rather then seeing the 'big picture' on an issue. This problem highlights two aspects of our constitution that are under attack today. The founding fathers created an independent judiciary so that court rulings would be removed (as much as possible) from the influences of 'public opinion' and the Bill of Rights was developed to protect 'minority' ideas from the 'tyranny of the majority'. Rawls would look at what happened to the 3 Iowa Supreme Court Justices as a gross miscarrage of Justice, and I would agree with him
ReplyDeleteAs stated above by Rawls, "Is this the right way to think about principles of justice?" I don't believe so, because we as a country know what our strengths and weaknesses and good qualities are. Should we leave these out when making decisions to govern our society by? I think not. When proposing rules for society no one person has the right to force their personal beliefs on anyone else. We must come together with a consession of what is for the good of all mankind. Of course this is not easy and may be impossible but if we could just all get along, even with our differences, then the world would be a much better place to live.Should laws always be blind to the differences between people? No because if your law says to kill those who don't agree with your way of life, well this surely won't work. I don't know why we can't come up with a contract that says I will respect your views and you respect mine, and we can agree to disagree. This will never work though because of the many religious fanatics out there. There is too many gray areas in this type of contract. As far as the 3 supreme court justices go, did they not impose their will and ignore the will of the majority?
ReplyDeleteShould laws be blind to the differences between people? How can this be? Aren't laws studied carefully and discussed before they go into effect. One has to be aware of the differences between people, and fairness, to me, means being upfront and knowledgeable of the other's circumstances. If contracts are made behind the "veil of ignorance," no wonder people are taken advantage of and contracts are disputed. I would not want to be signing a contract behind the "veil of ignorance," and I think most people like to study a contract to make sure it is legitimate and fair before they sign it. In reference to religious beliefs and life goals, I think most people again base their moral judgments and make their decisions based on these, and hopefully, fairness is among them. How could one make decisions without being influenced by his/her own sense of what is right.
ReplyDeleteCulture certainly plays a strong part here. The separation of church and state in the U.S. presents a light veil of ignorance in terms of laws. The controversy over religious practices that violate political laws being "right" - Santeria - is one of morality, and it is difficult to say "fair" or "unfair." Countries whose leaders are religious/political leaders have laws bound by the laws of the religion, and much turmoil results. I prefer the separation, which allows for Bob's agree to disagree idea.
ReplyDelete