As Hampton (1997) points out, "By using this argument, Rawls hopes to persuade readers that he has good reasons for commending his theory as correct, without relying on undefended or ill-defined intuitions" (p. 140). But is his theory really "correct?" Is it even conceivable to apply Rawls' principles of egalitarianism to a society in which competition is rampant and 'status' is the permanent engraving on the proverbial brass ring? Moreover, in this increasingly globally connected world, could Rawls' theory of justice be conceivably functional on an international level? Taking into consideration the idealistic nature of Rawls' suppositions, combined with the complex list of criteria that would need to be fulfilled in order for his vision to take shape, I would have deny the applicability of Rawls' philosophies to the 21st century. It is possible that his principles may have worked in the small villages of Colonial New England where communities were small, close-knit and new. Of course, Puritans were extremely judgmental, but had they applied Rawls' theories to their lives, things may have been different. Nonetheless, the idea of Political Liberalism working then is far-fetched enough. The notion of it having any chance of transforming society today is exponentially more unlikely.

First of all, people are, by nature, competitive. In cultures all around the world, members of...

In today's information-driven, globally connected world, we are more aware of the gaps between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', but that does not mean that we are any nearer to closing them. What Rawls' theory of justice fails to acknowledge is that even under the "veil of ignorance" society is no way homogenous. In fact, being blind to differences is not even a desirable goal for most people, who choose to celebrate their uniqueness. What is more, while it would be wonderful to make decisions without any type of bias entering into the equation, this is a virtual impossibility. Even 'chance' is biased in the sense that 'good luck' abounds for some and is perpetually absent for others. Therefore, despite the rationality argument Rawls outlines to support the viability of his theory of justice, his conjectures are not only idealistic, they are also logically unachievable.