Under Rawls's veil of ignorance, choosers do not know their social position. What is the philosophical purpose of this constraint?
ATo ensure the principles chosen will benefit the majority of people
BTo model impartiality by stripping away self-interested bias toward one's actual position
CTo make the social contract legally binding on all parties
DTo simulate randomness in the distribution of social outcomes
The veil of ignorance is a device for modeling impartiality, not for producing randomness or legal validity. By removing knowledge of your social position, talents, and values, Rawls forces choosers to reason from a standpoint they could endorse regardless of where they end up — which he argues yields principles favoring the least well-off.
Question 2 True / False
In Scanlonian contractualism, a principle is morally impermissible if the majority of affected parties would reasonably reject it.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Scanlon's test does not use majority vote. A principle can be reasonably rejected by even one individual and thereby rendered impermissible — provided that individual's objection is reasonable given everyone's interests taken seriously. This is precisely what allows contractualism to resist aggregative reasoning: the strong complaint of one person can defeat a principle that benefits many.
Question 3 Short Answer
What is the key difference between Rawlsian and Scanlonian contractualism?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Rawls grounds morality in principles that self-interested parties would choose behind a veil of ignorance, yielding principles like the difference principle for distributing social goods. Scanlon grounds morality in principles that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for mutual justification, focusing on what individuals owe each other rather than on the design of social institutions.
The distinction matters because Rawls is primarily a political philosopher asking what principles should govern society's basic structure, while Scanlon is asking what makes individual actions right or wrong. Their approaches overlap but target different questions, and Scanlon's formula is more directly action-guiding in interpersonal ethics.