Week 9- Post 2

     Imagine a scenario where all members of society had to vote on a principle that would rule them. The principles include utilitarianism (moral reasoning abiding by the greatest good for the greatest number), a principle that would benefit the least advantaged, and a principle that permits whatever inequalities reside when a person works hard. Although, none of the people know any identifying information about themselves (race, gender, class) that would have otherwise persuaded their decision. This imaginative scenario illustrates the question of how income, wealth, power, and opportunities be distributed. John Rawls offers an answer to that question by talking about the principles people would have chosen behind what he calls "the veil of ignorance". Rawl claims that society would have said no to utilitarianism because there is a risk the individual is apart of a minority once the "veil" goes up, and they would not want to be oppressed. He then says that society would say yes to the principle that benefits the least advantage, because it is not as risky for the individual. Since social and economic inequalities will be permitted only if they work to the benefit of the least well off. Finally, Rawls says people will reject the last policy because it does not go far enough in addressing the moral randomness of the natural lottery. There is still a possibility that you do not benefit from the principle.

    This scenario addresses the value of markets in society and the selfish properties it brings out in people. The principles with high moral arbitrariness were rejected by society for the reason of it being too risky. The principle Rawl predicted majority would say yes to is the one that would give everyone a chance to not be disregarded and make money. People tend to be ignorant when they have more power, so this scenario gets rid of that factor and forces everyone to make a decision without their differences.