The veil of ignorance is philosophical theory advanced by John Rawls, who was a Harvard philosopher. This theory, Rawls thinks, can be used to establish the morality of some actions in the society. The theory was advanced by John Rawls after close observation of activities like slave trade. Rawls then began to question from which moral position the slave owner operated and which decisions the slave owner would make if he were in the same shoes as the slave. He then came up with the veil of ignorance theory in an attempt to establish morality and decision making.
Drawing from the example of the cake, if those planning our society operate at an original position which is behind the veil of ignorance, they will make choices to the effect that whatever social, economic or mental condition that ensues from their decisions, at least they will have a share of some basic things they need to have a good life in the coming society. These basic things Rawls refers to as the primary social goods, which are: 1) Income and wealth, 2) environment for self-respect, 3) powers and opportunities and 4) Rights and liberties. The social goods are supposed to be distributed equally unless a situation where unequal distribution of them will be to the advantage of everyone (Konow 113).
Parties involved in decision-making, therefore, have to reason on how to pair two fundamental principles of justice; 1) that everyone has a greatest possible share of extensive liberties but without limiting the liberties of others in the process; and 2) that everyone has the chance of climbing the social and economic ladder and that social or economic inequalities are only acceptable when they contribute access of primary goods by those who stand at a disadvantage position (Krawczyk 134). Rawls, however, feels that of all the primary goods, liberty is of utmost importance to human beings. This means that liberty must not be surrendered in exchange for other social goods like justice, wealth, power, and status. Liberty can, therefore, be given only and if such an act of surrender will even yield much greater liberty. For example, if someone is at liberty to sing loud anywhere at any time, the liberty they have can only be taken away to achieve much greater liberty for that particular person or other. Therefore, the person at liberty to sing loud may be told or required to reduce their voice so as to enable his neighbors to watch news without much interference, a greater liberty for the neighbor will have been achieved by limiting some liberty of the loud singer. Rawls, however, argues that the imposition of such a limitation to liberty must be agreeable to the person whose liberty is being limited. Rawls list various basic liberties as: Being free from arbitrary arrest and seizure, having the right to vote and to be eligible for public office (Political Liberty), having freedom of thought and being at liberty of our conscience, having the freedom of speech and assembly and finally, having freedom and the right to hold personal property (Krawczyk 137)
The Veil of Ignorance is relevant to our politics today since more often than not, our leaders do not operate under the original position. They plan the society from an informed position hence are only too aware what to do for self-gains. Since our planners today do not operate under the veil of ignorance, every decision they make is calculated, and as rational beings with an aim to advance their interest, the society ends up with skewed and unequal distribution of the necessary goods (Teobaldelli, and Friedrich 8). These decisions have led to the access of more resource by the elite in the society.
For example, a typical case of political decisions made from an informed decision is the decision by America president to support homosexuality. Since he is well informed that such decisions are likely to auger well with a certain clique in the society and, as a result, he will get the much-needed support to ascend to the white house; he makes decisions to further his interests (Teobaldelli and Friedrich 7). However, to employ Rawls theory of Veil of ignorance and try to fix the situation, we consider a situation where the American president would be operating under a condition of ignorance, otherwise called the original position. If the American president did not know the impact of supporting homosexuality or not, he would have made a decision considering the possibility of such decisions impacting negatively on him. For example, if supporting or opposing homosexuality could mean that the results of such as position are unknown, and people only suspect some results, rational decision makers who are looking forward to further their interest would consider decisions that would leave them at least at a better position (Konow 110).
The veil of ignorance is a theory that can be used to improve governance. The practicality of it is challenging since it is very difficult to have leaders act from the original position so that they make decisions that would produce social goods and liberty favorable to everyone.
References
Primary source
Krawczyk, Michał. "A glimpse through the veil of ignorance: Equality of opportunity and support for redistribution." Journal of Public Economics 94.1 (2010): 131-141.
Secondary Sources
Teobaldelli, Désirée, and Friedrich Schneider. Beyond the veil of ignorance: The influence of direct democracy on the shadow economy. CESifo Working Paper MO3749, University of Munich, Munich, 2012.
Konow, James. "Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice." Social Choice and Welfare 33.1 (2009): 101-127.
