Political Philosophy: Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance
If You Didn't Know Who You'd Be, What World Would You Choose?
John Rawls thought he had found a way to make fairness feel inevitable — by asking you to design society before you knew where in it you would land.
The Idea
Most arguments about justice break down quickly because everyone reasons from their own position. The wealthy defend property rights; the disadvantaged argue for redistribution; the majority shapes rules that suit the majority. Rawls noticed this and thought it was the core problem: we can't agree on fairness because we already know who we are. His solution, developed in 'A Theory of Justice' (1971), was a thought experiment he called the 'veil of ignorance.' Imagine you are about to design the rules of a society from scratch — its institutions, its laws, its economic structure — but you must do so without knowing which position in that society you will occupy. You don't know your race, gender, class, talents, or even your conception of a good life. You are choosing the game before you know which piece you'll play. From behind this veil, Rawls argued, rational people would converge on two principles. First, everyone gets equal basic liberties. Second — and this is the sharper edge — inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least well-off members of society. He called this the 'difference principle.' You'd be willing to allow some people to earn more, but only if that arrangement genuinely lifts the floor for everyone, because you might be the person standing on that floor. The veil doesn't describe reality. It's a device for stripping self-interest out of moral reasoning — a kind of philosophical reset button that forces you to think structurally rather than personally.
In the World
In 2005, the economists Aarón Tornell and Frank Westermann studied why some countries with high inequality struggle to grow even when resources are available. One pattern kept appearing: elites design institutions that protect their own position, even when those institutions hold back the whole economy. The rules of the game are written by people who know exactly which piece they're playing. Rawls had anticipated this logic four decades earlier. His veil of ignorance is essentially a corrective to it — a way of imagining what institutions would look like if no one could rig them in advance. A more vivid illustration comes from a classroom exercise that teachers have used for decades. Students are asked to divide a cake between two people, with one rule: the person who cuts does not get to choose their slice. Almost universally, the cuts become perfectly even. Change the rule — let the cutter choose first — and the cuts become lopsided within minutes. The veil of ignorance is structurally identical to this. It doesn't appeal to people's generosity. It redesigns the incentives so that fairness becomes the rational, self-interested choice. Rawls believed that if people genuinely reasoned from this position, they would not choose a society that maximised average wealth — because the average hides how bad it can be at the bottom. They would instead prioritise protecting against the worst outcomes, precisely because they might be the ones living them.
Why It Matters
The veil of ignorance is useful far beyond political theory. It surfaces something practical: how often do we argue for fairness in ways that conveniently align with our own situation? The veil is a challenge to notice that pattern — in policy debates, workplace decisions, even family disputes about who does the less glamorous work. It also reframes what 'rational self-interest' actually means. We tend to assume it means protecting what we already have. But Rawls suggests that the truly rational move — if you're honest about uncertainty — is to care deeply about the conditions at the bottom, because that's where you might find yourself. This doesn't resolve every hard question. Critics, including Robert Nozick, argued that the veil smuggles in assumptions about risk-aversion that not everyone shares, and that it underweights individual liberty. These are real tensions. But even as a prompt, the thought experiment does something valuable: it asks you to separate 'what is good for me right now' from 'what would I endorse if I didn't know it was me.' That gap — between those two questions — is where most serious thinking about justice has to live.
A Question to Ponder
If you genuinely didn't know whether you'd be born into comfort or hardship, into the majority or a marginalised group, which one rule of the society you live in would you change first?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable