Justice and Fairness
What Would You Choose If You Didn't Know Who You'd Be?
A single thought experiment, dreamed up in a Harvard office in the 1970s, still quietly shapes how governments, courts, and ordinary people argue about what fairness actually means.
The Idea
John Rawls wanted to cut through the noise of political self-interest and get at something more fundamental: what principles of justice would rational people actually agree to, if they had no idea where they'd land in society? His answer was the 'veil of ignorance' — a hypothetical position in which you design the rules of your world without knowing whether you'll be born rich or poor, talented or struggling, majority or minority, healthy or chronically ill. Strip away all that knowledge, and your self-interest disappears with it. What you're left with, Rawls argued, is something closer to genuine fairness. From behind this veil, he believed people would converge on two principles. First, everyone gets equal basic liberties. Second — and this is the provocative part — social and economic inequalities are only justifiable if they benefit the least well-off members of society. Not the average. Not the majority. The worst-off. This is what Rawls called the 'difference principle', and it's a direct challenge to utilitarian logic, which is happy to let some people lose badly so long as the overall score goes up. Rawls insists that a society is only as just as the floor it provides for its most vulnerable members. The elegance of the veil is that it doesn't require sainthood — just clear-eyed self-interest, applied before you know whose interests those are.
In the World
In 1995, South Africa was drafting its post-apartheid constitution — one of the most ambitious acts of political reinvention of the 20th century. The drafters faced an almost impossible task: designing institutions that would be fair to a population fractured by decades of legislated inequality, while bringing together people whose interests seemed irreconcilable. Rawlsian thinking was explicitly part of the conversation. Constitutional Court justices and legal scholars invoked the logic of the veil of ignorance to argue for strong socioeconomic rights — the right to housing, healthcare, food, water — not merely civil liberties. The reasoning was essentially Rawlsian: if you didn't know whether you'd be born into a township or a suburb, what floor would you want guaranteed? The resulting constitution is widely regarded as one of the most progressive ever written, enshrining positive rights that most Western constitutions don't even attempt. Whether South Africa has lived up to that document is a painful and ongoing question. But the document itself reflects what happens when a society is forced to reason about fairness from something close to scratch — when the old rules have collapsed and people are, briefly, genuinely uncertain which side of the line they'll land on. The veil of ignorance isn't just a thought experiment. It turns out to be most persuasive precisely when history has already torn the veil away.
Why It Matters
The veil of ignorance is useful not because most of us will ever design a constitution, but because it offers a portable test for fairness in everyday life — in workplaces, families, institutions, and the small civic decisions that quietly shape who gets what. When you find yourself defending a policy or a rule, try stepping behind the veil: would you still think it was fair if you didn't know which role you'd occupy within it? Would you endorse your company's parental leave policy if you didn't know your own gender or career stage? Would you support your city's school funding model if you didn't know which neighbourhood you'd grow up in? What often happens when people genuinely try this exercise is that they discover their intuitions about fairness are more generous than their habitual positions. The veil strips out the motivated reasoning that makes self-interest dress up as principle. It's not a perfect tool — Rawls was critiqued heavily, from both left and right — but as a daily practice of moral imagination, it has real force. Fairness, it turns out, is often easier to see when you're not yet sure whose side you're on.
A Question to Ponder
If you genuinely didn't know the circumstances you'd be born into, which single feature of your society would you most want to see redesigned — and what does that tell you about where you think the floor currently sits?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable