Social justice 12

The article Revisiting the “Veil of Ignorance” by Christian Schmidt analyzes the role of the veil of ignorance as the determinant of Rawls’ original position construction. The author also explores the connection of the original position in testing the relevance of traditional contractual approach to Rawls’ theory of justice. Rawls defines the original position as a hypothetical situation that is neither a pure utilitarianism nor strict contractual tradition by a mixture of both. Original position as a determinant of” justice as fairness” helps in understanding what ignorance is required and what knowledge is necessary for the success of the principle of justice. John Rawls asserts that the veil of ignorance is essential to approach to justice because it deprives the parties of knowledge hence ensuring impartial judgment.

Schmidt also explores the difference between the veil of ignorance and the veil of uncertainty. John Rawls used these concepts in his introduction to the theory of justice as fairness. The veil of uncertainty refers to lack of knowledge regarding the occurrence of future events while the veil of ignorance defines lack of knowledge on the events that have been fixed. The veil of ignorance hides factual information while a veil of uncertainty hides some features of the information. This is because ignorance refers to a total lack of knowledge while uncertainty indicates incomplete knowledge. Rawls used the concept of the veil of ignorance to isolate information needed by decision-makers at each stage of justice procedure in an attempt to achieve a just society. In the original position, the veil of ignorance is applied in the initial stage while the veil of uncertainty is concerned with other stages of the original position. Another important distinction is that ignorance cannot be estimated while uncertainty is estimated by a probability. There are different levels of uncertainty of knowledge. The difference between the veil of ignorance and the veil of uncertainty helps in interpreting the original position. For instance, the distinction helps in understanding that the parties involved in the veil of ignorance are trustees’ representative of anyone who accepts the principles of justice and not decision-makers.

In an attempt to explain the rationality of choosing the principles of justice, Rawls introduces the distinction between direct knowledge and theoretical knowledge. Direct knowledge of information refers to actual data while theoretical knowledge defines knowledge purposely for learning and evaluating information. All the parties involved in the original position are assumed to have perfect knowledge regarding the principles of justice. That is, society understands the general facts that affect the principles of justice. In the original position, the decision-makers have perfect knowledge and understanding of what the principles of justice mean. Another feature of distinction is that knowledge is learning and aptitude of understanding information while information; on the other hand, is factual data.

The theory of justice as fairness is applicable in the modern world. Justice as fairness also called the conception of justice forms society’s political, constitutional, economic institutions and social structure of justice. The Constitution of Turkey, for instance, assigns individuals rights and liberties to pursue happiness and equality. It also develops a system which protects individuals from any form of harm that might be caused by the government. As Rawls argues, the principles of justice should be selected by rational parties in ideal circumstances.

Other application of the theory of justice as fairness in Turkey today includes distributive justice. Distributive justice refers to the agitation for equal distribution of wealth, rights and burden within a society. Social movements such as Human Rights Activism, Islamism, Alevi cultural movement and the Kurdish ethnic nationalism have been formed in Turkey to push equality and fairness in the distribution of justice in the country (Simsek, 2004).

References

Schmidt, C. (n.d). Revisiting the “Veil of Ignorance. Universite’ Paris-Dauphine, 265-289.

Simsek, S. (2004). New social movements in Turkey since 1980. Turkish Studies, 5(2), 111-139.