John Rawls is a great proponent of the natural rights theory. With his theory of the veil of ignorance, Rawls is of the idea that everyone has some rights that accrue to them by nature. Natural right is a philosophical perspective developed by Hobbes, and it portends that all living beings have rights, and these rights would make an individual act or fail to act in a certain way. The veil of ignorance by John Rawls is premised on the inviolable rights of an individual; this makes him fall under the natural rights theoretical concept. Rawls argues that to have a better society, it is important for individuals who are in a position to make decisions to act from a position of no knowledge of the nature of their decisions. At this position, an individual is operating under ignorance and what shields the individual from the results of their action is “the veil of ignorance,” this position he refers to as the original position (Rawls 12). At this original position, an individual is unable to tell their social status, class, their ability to own assets, their intelligence, and their strengths. When one is in this situation, the individual is operating under the veil of ignorance. The effect of an individual living under the veil of ignorance is that they tend not to act selfishly to benefits themselves (Rawls 206), rather, they tend to have a wider view of the society in mind.
At the original position, an individual does not act try to take advantage over others in the society, they do not devise plans to ensure that they yield more profits unto themselves at the expense of others in the society, in fact, individuals operating under the veil of ignorance see the original position as the best for them. According to Rawls, social justice is derived from this original position, and since the original position presents a situation which is fair to everyone, justice and fairness are achieved. Therefore, justice is only achieved from a fair position which is the original position (Rawls 12). At this situation, no one tends to derive profits from the other because they are all operating under the veil of ignorance. Since they do not have even knowledge of what their actions would result into, they are not even interested in violating the rights of other. This social order would, therefore, see an equal distribution of rights in the society and liberty, which he describe as the most important of all social goods, is achieved for everyone. An individual’s liberty may only be limited if doing so is the only way that will protect the public’s interest (Rawls 213). In summary, according to Rawls, everyone has rights that should always be protected by the government and not even the whole society’s rights can wholly override an individual’s natural rights.
John Stuart Mill offers a different perspective, although he also agrees that an individual has rights that should be protected, his argument is based on the utilitarian theory which contends that an action is morally right and therefore just when it aims to achieve the greatest good for the whole society. According to Mills, the margin of good, described as utility should be used to achieve a balance between good and bad. He also contends that an action of sacrifice is only important when it aims at increasing utility, otherwise, the action is utterly useless and therefore a waste of time (Mill 148). In essence, a just action should strive to increase the good and reduce evil hence maximizing utility. At this point, the utilitarian theory and the veil of ignorance contrast, the justice according to Mills comes as a result of individuals making decisions that tend to achieve more good and reduce evil. This means that individuals are acting with knowledge and know exactly what is good or bad. This contrasts Rawls theory which contends that in order to ensure justice to the society and to enable individuals to identify themselves with the society, all decision makers should be operating from the original which is the veil of ignorance.
Mills goes further and discusses the concept of pleasure and according to him, pleasure does not mean that which we feel on us. He argues that the pleasure that is felt by the physical body is not enough for human beings who he argues are superior to animals. He, therefore, thinks that the gratification of the superiority of the mental capacity of man suffices real pleasure (Mills 138). Hence, a foolish person who feels comfortable is not better than a wise man who doesn’t feel comfortable. From this argument Mills places rights to differ in the society, by comparing a fool and a wise man, he tends to argue that justice will only be achieved if human beings struggle to reach the level which he thinks they deserve mentally. However, John Rawls argues that it is better for human beings to live in a state of ignorance, where we have no knowledge or mental capacity to judge what is great, poor, bad, good or evil.
Also according to John Stuart Mills, individuals are supposed to act so that they decision achieve positive results for the society. This means that according to Mills, it is the individual decisions that protect a just society, it is as a result of our individual decisions that we define what is just and what is not. On the contrary, Mills has a different idea, once the social order is achieved where all individuals have equal rights, it is the government or decision makers that should protect the rights and liberties of individuals. The government should, therefore, ensure that no one’s liberty is limited unless by doing so, greater liberties are achieved in the process ("John Rawls”). A similarity that comes out from the two theories, however, is that freedom or rather, liberty of the mind is better than any other social good. Mills describes them as bodily satisfactions. Rawls on the other side considers them social goods. According to Rawls. There is nothing that supersedes liberty in terms of appropriateness for a just society ("John Rawls”). Therefore, liberty should only be substituted for more liberty but not for social goods. On the same point, Mills argues for the ultimate liberty of the human mind, he holds to a high esteem the freedom of human mentality and suggests that not being comfortable while a wise man is better than being comfortable as a fool. He postulates that human liberty is the best and should be protected than any other pleasures.
Although Mills and Rawls differ on how to achieve justice or rather ultimate pleasure and happiness for the whole society, they both agree that whether it is individuals making decisions to achieve such rights, as put across by Mills, or it is, a selected few protecting people’s liberties, as put across by John Rawls, all should aim at ensuring that justice prevails for each individual hence the society. From Mill’s point of view, it is one’s intellectual maturity that helps them realize the need to act to further the interests of the society that to act to further self-interests, and he acknowledges this as the greatest virtue in man (Mill 147). Mill’s argument is also based on the impartial agent whose actions are to the benefit of the whole society. This closely relates to the ethics of egoisms since an individual behaves in such a manner that pursuing a public interest will ultimately help them achieve their own interests, however, the veil of ignorance only works when there is a complete lack of knowledge, which means individuals do not even have some self-interests to pursue.
Utilitarianism is a superior theory as compared to the veil of ignorance since the latter assume a situation that is practically unachievable. It is not easy to be at the original position as required by the theory of the veil of ignorance so that the theory can applicable, however, utilitarianism requires that individuals develop in terms of their mentality so that they could be able to see the need for pursuing public interests as they advance their interests, this is achievable even if not by all in the society hence, this theory emerges superior to the veil of ignorance.
Works Cited
Rawls, John. "A theory of justice Oxford University Press." New York (1971).
Mill, John Stuart. "On Liberty and Other Essays, ed. John Gray." New York: Oxford University Press 274 (1991): 589.
"John Rawls And The Veil Of Ignorance." Hammering Shield. 2013. Web. 09 May 2016.
