Rawls on How to Build a Moral Theory (12-Nov-2003)

In common with some of the other theories we have looked at this term, Rawls appears to be trying to formalise the "golden rule" - treat others as you would want them to treat you.

Rawls assumes that someone standing in the "original position" will make a choice based on the "maximin" rule; that is, he will choose the option which results in the least worst result possible, which will also prove to be the best possible outcome for everyone. The simple analogy Rawls' uses is of two individuals sharing a cake by having one person cut it in two, knowing that the other will have first choice of which piece to have. Rawls says that this will produce an even split between the two participants.

There are two problems with this:

Firstly, it may be that a choice will be made that does not correspond to "maximin". To take the cake example, a 50/50 split is not guaranteed if the first person attempt a cleverly shaped cut which deceives the second person into choosing the smaller piece. While the first person isn't guaranteed to come out ahead by doing this, he may feel it's worth the risk. Similarly, a person in the "original position" may decide that five percent of the population should be enslaved, because that leaves him with a ninety-five percent chance of not being a slave himself.

Secondly, it appears to assume that all people in the "original position" will make the same choices; that the "veil of ignorance" will be enough to cancel out any subjective aspects of choice. It's harder to stretch the cake metaphor to demonstrate this, but consider the issue of gender. Different people hold different views about equality of the sexes, and that these views do not appear to depend on the sex of the individual concerned. So for example, the view that a man's role is to earn money and that a woman's role is to keep house is held by men and women alike, as is the opposing view that the roles of men and women should not be so distinguished. It seems unlikely that these positions are held purely on account of the sex of the person holding them, and so putting people in the "original position", where they disregard their own gender, is not going to alter their opinion, and so the choices made will not be the same.