What Do You Take To Be Rawls' Central Aim In Devising The Ve

What Do You Take To Be Rawls Central Aim In Devising The Veil Of I

What do you take to be Rawls central aim in devising the "veil of ignorance" in this theory of justice? Do you see Kant's categorical imperative here? Also, what are theorists come to mind for you in Rawls' use of any of the following concepts: Public reason, primary good, liberty, right over good, original position, well-ordered society and consensus, or any other concept or aspect you find resonates with other thinkers. Please reply with words using 2 sources in the Turabian style.

Paper For Above instruction

John Rawls’s development of the “veil of ignorance” constitutes a foundational element in his conception of justice, aiming to establish a fair and impartial method for determining the principles that ought to govern a just society. Rawls introduces this device within his broader theory of justice as fairness, seeking to eliminate personal biases, social inequalities, and particular interests that may distort moral reasoning. The central aim of the veil of ignorance, therefore, is to facilitate the formulation of principles of justice that are justifiable to all members of society, regardless of their eventual social positions or natural talents. By stripping individuals of knowledge about their own circumstances—such as race, class, gender, or intelligence—Rawls ensures that the choices made reflect truly impartial and universal standards, leading to equitable social arrangements.

Rawls’s primary goal through this device aligns with a moral philosophy that emphasizes fairness, equality, and the rational capacity of individuals to agree upon principles that secure justice for everyone. This method intends to produce moral and political consensus rooted in mutual respect and rational deliberation. In this context, the veil of ignorance functions similarly to Kant's categorical imperative in its universalizability principle. Kant’s imperative commands that one act only according to maxims that could be consistently willed as a universal law, which resonates with Rawls’s aim to craft principles accessible and justifiable to all rational agents, regardless of their specific societal positions.

Additionally, insights from Kant’s deontological ethics underpin Rawls’s emphasis on rights and principles over consequentialist considerations. Rawls’s concept of “right over good” echoes Kantian moral seriousness, emphasizing adherence to justice principles rather than merely promoting overall societal well-being. This focus underscores the importance of respecting individual rights, akin to Kant’s view that moral agents should be treated as ends in themselves. Rawls’s use of the "original position" and "public reason" further exemplifies this Kantian influence, as the original position acts as a hypothetical setup ensuring impartial agreement, and public reason mandates that political decisions be justifiable to all citizens equally, echoing Kant’s ideal of universal moral law.

Rawls’s development of these concepts also resonates with other political thinkers. For instance, the idea of a “well-ordered society” aligns with the insights of Rousseau and Locke about social contract and legitimacy, emphasizing moral consensus and stability based on shared principles of justice. Similarly, the concept of “primary goods,” which are essential for individuals to pursue their conceptions of the good life, draws from utilitarian and liberal traditions, aiming at maximizing individual freedom and opportunity within a framework of fairness. Other theorists, such as Habermas, emphasize the importance of communicative rationality and consensus, which can be seen to complement Rawls’s public reason and deliberative approach.

In summary, Rawls's central aim with the veil of ignorance is to establish a procedure for deriving principles of justice that are fair, impartial, and universally justifiable, free from biases and particular interests. His method bears significant Kantian influence, particularly through the emphasis on universalizability and respect for rights. The interconnectedness of these concepts with other social and political theorists underscores Rawls’s effort to ground justice in rational consensus and moral dignity, shaping a comprehensive approach to political morality that continues to influence contemporary social philosophy.

References

• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
• Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Translated by William Rehg, MIT Press, 1996.
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. translated by G. D. H. Cole, Penguin Classics, 2003.
• Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. Democracy and Disagreement. Harvard University Press, 1996.
• Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. Harvard University Press, 2009.
• Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press, 1977.
• Sandel, Michael. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? FSG Originals, 2009.
• McDougall, Gordon. Rawls. Routledge, 2007.