John Rawls The Veil Of Ignorance Analysis

1026 Words 4 Pages
Contrasting the earlier Western philosophers, John Rawls is a contemporary figure who believed that rational and self-interested individuals would come to the same conclusions if they did not know their position. This was called the Veil of Ignorance, theorizing that without any knowledge of gender, race, socio-economic status or any other social position, certain rights would be agreed upon. These equal opportunities shaped his political philosophy, which became known as justice as fairness. It was theorized by Rawls that when it came to social or economic inequalities, they must benefit the least well off (Class notes). He advocated rethinking the philosophies that the nation was founded on. The founding fathers did not have the veil of ignorance when they drafted the constitution, and so they could not have started at what Rawls calls the original position. From the original position, all would choose what was the most reasonable. Economic benefit must seek to raise both the rich and the poor (Foss). This is a very liberal perspective, but that is not to say that modern Republicans entirely shy away from it.
Being a Moderate Conservative on the political spectrum, Christie is more likely to adhere to some of the Rawls ideals than other, more extreme conservative Republicans. Perhaps he
…show more content…
While Christie does not fit perfectly into it, he does believe the government should be cautious of its limits and not interfere with the lives of its citizens. Additionally, his support for social programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, speak to Rawl’s contemporary theories. It is important that the government distribute resources in a way that benefits the least well off. In this case, Christie is a proponent of keeping these programs with some alternations, which shows that he believes the government is responsible for helping its citizens who are in

Related Documents