John Rawls: Justice, the Veil of Ignorance, and the Difference Principle
This paper examines John Rawls's political philosophy of justice as developed in his major works, tracing its intellectual roots in Enlightenment social contract theorists such as Locke and Rousseau. The paper explains Rawls's original position and the veil of ignorance as a framework for rational decision-making in a just society, then analyzes the Difference Principle and its relationship to distributive justice. It further contrasts utilitarian and deontological ethical frameworks as they relate to Rawls's two principles of justice, and concludes with a critical evaluation of whether the Difference Principle holds up against real-world evidence from welfare societies in the United States and Europe.
- Introduction: Rawls and the American Experience: Rawls reframes justice within American liberal tradition
- The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance: Hypothetical framework for impartial social decision-making
- The Difference Principle and Distributive Justice: Inequalities justified only when they benefit the least advantaged
- Utilitarianism and Deontology in Rawlsian Justice: Comparing utilitarian and deontological ethical frameworks
- Critiquing the Difference Principle: Historical Evidence: Welfare state evidence challenges Rawls's assumptions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper efficiently traces Rawls's intellectual lineage from Locke and Rousseau through to his own two principles of justice, giving the argument clear historical grounding.
- It uses a direct quotation from A Theory of Justice to anchor the abstract concept of the veil of ignorance in Rawls's own precise language.
- The conclusion moves beyond exposition to offer a genuine critique, citing real-world welfare policy outcomes to challenge the practical validity of the Difference Principle.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of concept-to-critique progression: it first defines Rawls's key terms (original position, veil of ignorance, Difference Principle) with textual support, then compares competing ethical frameworks (utilitarianism vs. deontology), and finally tests Rawls's theory against empirical evidence. This structure prevents the essay from becoming purely descriptive and gives it genuine analytical weight.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by situating Rawls within the broader American liberal tradition, then moves sequentially through his core theoretical concepts before pivoting to comparative ethical analysis and a closing critique. Each section builds on the last, so the final criticism of the Difference Principle lands with full context behind it. The Works Cited section follows MLA-adjacent formatting, and in-text parenthetical citations support every major claim.
Introduction: Rawls and the American Experience
In his theory of justice, political philosopher John Rawls examines the idea of social justice and the individual rights of persons by redefining over 200 years of the American experience. In general, he considers the manner in which the Founding Fathers were correct in basing their views on previous social contract theorists like Locke and Rousseau. There is a clear linkage between John Locke and Rawls that validates the ideas of liberalism within American society. Rawls notes that the American experience extended the concept of justice far beyond what any of the Enlightenment philosophers ever hoped (Rawls, 1957).
Rawls (1921–2002), an American philosopher who focused on moral and political philosophy, believed that the principles of justice are the models that rational, free individuals would choose as the basic terms of cooperation within their society. He called this position the original position — the most favorable choice for an individual situation. This idea encompassed two overall principles of justice: (1) they must match what an informed individual requires in a free state regarding various circumstances, and (2) they would most likely be chosen in the original position by rational individuals. In effect, the original position should engender a moral stance on justice that is both workable and intuitive (Rawls, 2001).
The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance
Rawls's original position is a hypothetical presumption that deals with the way people view situations relevant to their circumstances. Groups set tasks to maximize agreements about the political and economic structure of their society so that they can live together in harmony — what Rawls calls the veil of ignorance. This veil is not negative but informative: each person lacks certain knowledge about their own position. As Rawls states, "no one knows his place in society, his class, position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like" (Rawls, 1999, p. 118).
To illustrate with a relevant example: in an imaginary society, one may or may not be wealthy, intelligent, physically adept, or born into a preferred class. An individual may occupy any position in that society once the veil is lifted. The idea is that all parties must consider society from the perspective of all its members — from the better off, to the middle range, to the worst off. This thought experiment is designed to ensure that the principles chosen to govern society are genuinely fair, since no one can tailor rules to favor their own predetermined situation.
The Difference Principle and Distributive Justice
The Difference Principle is part of the broader idea of distributive justice. We know that the wealth of a nation is not fixed but can vary according to industrialization, work effort, expertise, and natural resources. The Difference Principle is grounded in Rawls's two principles of justice: (1) each individual has an equal claim to a set of basic rights and liberties — rights that, like Locke and Rousseau held, are natural and not granted by any authority; and (2) social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: they must be attached to positions open to all, and they must benefit the least advantaged members of society (Rawls, 1999).
The "difference" is that, theoretically, those with varying degrees of income will still work toward the overall benefit of society, because the greater the overall benefit to society, the greater the chance that everyone will share in it. This might be understood as a version of the trickle-down effect — the more wealth entering the top level eventually benefits the lower levels as well.
Works Cited
Kamm, F. (2007). Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities and Permissible Harm. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1957). Justice as fairness. Philosophical Review, 54(22), 653–662.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). A Theory of Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, R., & Groves, H. (2003). Introducing Political Philosophy. New York: Icon Books.
Waldron, J. (1986). John Rawls and the social minimum. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 3(1), 21–33.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.