A wealthy entrepreneur argues: 'I built a successful business through my talent and effort, so I deserve to keep the rewards even if this worsens inequality.' Rawls would respond that this argument fails because:
APrivate property is inherently unjust and should be abolished
BNatural talents are arbitrary from a moral point of view — behind the veil of ignorance, no one would agree to principles that allow arbitrary advantages to determine life prospects
CEffort alone without community support cannot create value, so individual desert claims are meaningless
DThe entrepreneur's argument is valid; Rawls agrees that talent and effort justify inequality
The veil of ignorance strips away knowledge of one's natural talents precisely because Rawls regards them as morally arbitrary — you didn't choose to be born talented any more than you chose your race or class. Behind the veil, rational agents wouldn't agree to principles that let natural talent determine life outcomes because they might turn out to lack that talent. This is the core Rawlsian critique of libertarian desert claims: the 'deserving' framing assumes the very distribution of talents that needs justification.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Behind the veil of ignorance, why would rational agents choose the difference principle (allow inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged) rather than strict equality?
ABecause agents behind the veil are not truly rational — Rawls assumes irrational risk aversion
BBecause strict equality might produce lower total wealth, and some inequalities (like higher pay for skilled surgeons) can incentivize productivity that raises everyone's floor, including the worst-off
CBecause the difference principle is equivalent to strict equality in practice
DBecause rational agents would maximize expected utility, and inequality produces higher expected outcomes
Rawls's argument is that even under the veil, allowing inequalities that raise the floor for the worst-off position is rational. If a society with some inequality produces enough growth that the bottom 20% are better off than they would be under strict equality, a rational agent who might end up at the bottom should prefer it. The difference principle doesn't permit all inequality — only inequality that genuinely benefits those at the bottom. Option D is actually the utilitarian position that Rawls REJECTS; he argues agents would use maximin (protect the worst-case outcome) rather than expected utility maximization.
Question 3 True / False
The original position is a hypothetical contract that, while seldom actually agreed to, generates binding political obligations because rational agents would have agreed to it.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
The original position is not a hypothetical contract that generates obligations through hypothetical consent. It is a thought experiment — a device for reasoning about impartiality. Rawls uses it to identify what principles would be chosen by agents reasoning without bias. The source of justification for the principles is not 'you would have agreed' but rather that the original position models the appropriate conditions for impartial moral reasoning. Nozick's libertarian critique actually exploits this confusion, which is why Rawls is careful to distinguish the device from its purpose.
Question 4 True / False
Behind the veil of ignorance, parties retain general knowledge — such as facts about economics, psychology, and political science — even though they lack knowledge of their particular place in society.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Rawls is specific about what the veil removes and what it preserves. Parties behind the veil don't know their class, talents, conception of the good, generation, gender, or race. But they retain general knowledge about how societies work — economic theory, human psychology, political institutions. This is necessary for the reasoning to be productive: agents need to understand the effects of different institutional arrangements in order to choose between principles. Without general knowledge, they couldn't compare the consequences of alternative justice principles at all.
Question 5 Short Answer
What is the veil of ignorance designed to achieve, and why does Rawls think it models impartial moral reasoning rather than distorting it?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: The veil of ignorance removes all knowledge of particular facts about one's own social position — class, talent, gender, generation — that would otherwise allow agents to tailor principles to benefit themselves. By forcing agents to choose principles without knowing who they will be, it operationalizes the moral intuition that just rules should not favor anyone in particular. Rawls argues this models impartiality rather than distorting reasoning because the knowledge removed (particular self-interest) is precisely what makes ordinary political bargaining unjust. The veil strips away bias while preserving the general knowledge needed to reason about consequences.
The key is that Rawls distinguishes knowledge that is morally irrelevant to justice (your particular social position, which you didn't choose) from knowledge that is needed for rational deliberation (how economies work, what human beings need). Communitarian critics like Sandel argue the veil creates an incoherent 'unencumbered self' — but Rawls would say it doesn't remove identity, only morally arbitrary advantages.