John Rawls The Veil Of Ignorance

Question 1: John Rawls

John Rawls was an American political and ethical philosopher. Rawls was born in Baltimore February 21st, 1921 and passed in 2002 at 81 years old. One of his best works was A Theory of Justice. In which he describes the problems with the distribution of justice, and how the only way we con truly distribute justice evenly is by a social contract.

John Rawls is a contractarian. He wants to further the interest of individuals. However, the only way to do that is a social contract. The individual must give-up something, for a society, to further everyone’s needs within that society. This is known as the social contract. To further explain, a social contract is not actually something that you can see or hold. It is something

If people don’t know anything about themselves then they cannot be biased towards a situation. All people are biased to the different things that happen in their lives—so how can all people agree to a social contract? The Veil of ignorance is fabricated and can never exist. The Veil of Ignorance has two principles “Scheme of Equal Liberties” and “The Difference Principle.” The first principle says to give one person as much liberties (basic rights) as possible as long as others have the same freedom/rights. An individual must have as many freedoms as they can possibly get, and others will have the exact same amount. They are free to do anything they want as long as they don’t get into the way of another’s freedoms/liberties—and that is what Rawls calls

A teacher takes the students outside and tells them to get into a line to race. Imagen that there are students off all races, wealth, etc. And the teacher will say a couple of statements. If what she said applies to you then you take two steps forward, if it doesn’t you take one step back. The first thing the teacher says is “take two steps forward if you have never wondered where your next meal was coming from.” The next was “take two steps forward if you’ve had a cellphone growing up.” And the last was “take two steps forward if you have two-parent household.” All those who took six steps forward had a better opportunity to win the race. The ones who were left behind, had to work that much harder to win the race. They still had the opportunity to be in the race and win, but they are behind the others who grew up with more resources. Is it still fair? They have the same opportunities? However, they don’t have the same resources to start at the same line as