John Rawls’ concept of the “original position” occupies a foundational role in his political philosophy, particularly in articulating his influential theory of justice as fairness. Introduced in his seminal work A Theory of Justice (1971), the original position serves as a hypothetical thought experiment designed to establish fair and impartial principles of justice that rational individuals would agree upon under conditions of equality. It functions not as a historical event but as a normative device that models the conditions under which moral and political agreement can be attained free from arbitrary advantages, social contingencies, or power asymmetries.
By invoking the idea of the original position, Rawls seeks to answer a core problem in political philosophy: how can principles of justice be derived that are not biased by individuals’ specific positions in society, such as their class, race, gender, talents, or conception of the good? The original position, therefore, functions as a procedural mechanism for generating universalizable, impartial, and justifiable norms of social cooperation in a liberal-democratic polity.
I. The Structure of the Original Position
The original position is best understood as a hypothetical social contract in which rational agents, representing free and equal moral persons, come together to decide upon the basic structure of society. These agents are placed behind a “veil of ignorance”—a central feature of the thought experiment—which deprives them of knowledge about their personal characteristics, such as:
- Social status or class
- Natural talents or abilities
- Religious or moral convictions
- Conception of the good
- Gender, race, or ethnicity
Deprived of this information, parties are prevented from tailoring principles of justice to their own advantage. As Rawls writes, “since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain.” (A Theory of Justice, p. 12).
Importantly, while parties do not know their personal circumstances, they do possess general knowledge of human psychology, sociology, and economics. They know that societies contain diversity, that resources are scarce, and that individuals have competing interests. This allows them to make rational judgments about how best to secure their own interests without resorting to unfair advantages.
II. Philosophical Justification: Kantian and Contractarian Roots
The original position draws heavily from Kantian moral theory and social contract traditions, particularly Rousseau and Locke. From Kant, Rawls adopts the idea that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves and that moral principles must be chosen autonomously and universally. From the contractarian tradition, Rawls inherits the notion that political legitimacy and justice derive from the consent of the governed—reframed in Rawlsian terms as a hypothetical consent under fair conditions.
Rawls modifies the social contract tradition by shifting from a historical compact to a rational choice framework. The aim is not to reflect actual historical agreements but to provide a moral justification for principles of justice that rational individuals would choose when deprived of partial or self-serving information.
III. Rationality, Risk Aversion, and the Choice of Principles
Within the original position, agents are assumed to be rational, mutually disinterested, and concerned to advance their own interests, but without knowledge of their personal position in society. Given the uncertainty about where they might end up—rich or poor, privileged or marginalized—they are motivated to choose principles that safeguard their well-being in the worst-case scenario.
This leads them, according to Rawls, to adopt the maximin rule: choose the option where the worst possible outcome is better than the worst outcomes of other alternatives. Applied to principles of justice, this rationale leads the parties in the original position to select two key principles:
- The Equal Basic Liberties Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme for others (e.g., freedom of speech, conscience, political liberty, due process).
- The Difference Principle and Fair Equality of Opportunity:
- Fair equality of opportunity: Social positions and offices must be open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
- Difference principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
The original position thus generates a lexically ordered set of principles that prioritize liberty first, then fair opportunity, and finally the justifiability of inequalities.
IV. Normative Function: Legitimacy, Objectivity, and Moral Justifiability
Rawls’ use of the original position fulfills several normative functions in political theory:
- Legitimacy: The principles chosen in the original position are considered legitimate because they are selected through a fair and impartial procedure, which any rational agent could hypothetically accept.
- Objectivity: The veil of ignorance ensures that the resulting principles do not reflect contingent historical, social, or economic privileges. The process aims to produce principles that have universal moral appeal, independent of personal biases.
- Moral Justifiability: By situating justice as fairness within a framework of public reason and reciprocity, Rawls seeks to make the principles acceptable to all citizens as free and equal moral persons.
V. Critiques and Alternative Formulations
While widely influential, the original position has drawn several critiques:
- Communitarian Critique: Thinkers like Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argue that Rawls’ abstraction from personal identity decontextualizes moral reasoning and ignores the embeddedness of individuals in historical and cultural communities. For them, the “unencumbered self” in the original position lacks the social ties that shape real moral commitments.
- Feminist Critique: Feminists such as Susan Okin challenge the model’s failure to account for gendered power relations in the private sphere. The original position assumes that justice can be fully theorized without addressing inequalities in family structures or unpaid care work.
- Marxist Critique: From a Marxist perspective, the original position fails to challenge the underlying capitalist structure of property and production. Critics argue that it accepts existing institutions and only moderates their distributive effects without reimagining more radical egalitarian alternatives.
- Capabilities and Welfare-Based Alternatives: Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum have proposed the capabilities approach as a more nuanced framework that focuses on what individuals are actually able to do and be, rather than what principles they would choose in hypothetical conditions.
Despite these critiques, the original position remains a powerful heuristic device in normative political theory. It has been adapted in various domains, including global justice, bioethics, and institutional design, and continues to shape debates about fairness, legitimacy, and distributive justice.
Conclusion
The original position is a cornerstone of John Rawls’ theory of justice, serving as a normative and procedural construct to derive principles that rational individuals would choose under conditions of fairness and equality. By combining Kantian moral reasoning with contractarian logic, Rawls develops a powerful framework for conceptualizing justice in liberal-democratic societies. While subject to various critiques, the original position has profoundly influenced modern political philosophy by providing a systematic method for reconciling liberty, equality, and social cooperation in pluralist societies. As a philosophical tool, it continues to offer rich insights into the moral foundations of constitutional democracy and just institutional arrangements.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.