If you could redesign society, what laws would you choose?
How would you define equality and justice?
One caveat: you don’t know which class, country, or time you’ll be born.
John Rawls in 1971, imagined this exercise to determine the morality of laws. You could divide power by income, but risk entering into as someone poor. Or you could choose one in which the United States is still under British control.
This is like dividing a cake between two kids by having one cut it, and the other choose which half they want.
You can choose a world in which women can’t vote, but risk being born a woman.
You can choose a totalitarian government but risk being born a free-thinking writer.
You can choose a country with stiff immigration laws, but then be born an immigrant who spends 15 years trying to immigrate legally.
You could cut entitlement spending, but then be born into a single-parent family.
The Veil of Ignorance dissipates cognitive biases. Personal experiences and preconceived assumptions skew our current worldview.
Since we grew up in a good neighborhood with after-school programs, we want to keep hoodlums from skating and loitering in parking lots.
Since our family members are clean-cut and stable, we care less about providing public funds for drug addicts.
Since we don’t know anyone in prison, we don’t care that Ohio bans many prisoners from reading books.
When you could be born into any family on earth, you yearn for the fairest outcome possible.
“Fair” is a subjective term. By definition, humans aren’t equal in sex, intelligence, or opportunity. Rawls uses two principles to support this exercise. 1) the liberty principle: that the social contact should ensure maximum liberty to all without violating others’ rights and 2) difference: your social contract should guarantee all people equal opportunities to prosper, and if any inequalities exist, they should help those who are worst off.
This is just a lens through which to view the world and shouldn’t be taken too far. Instead, it lets you understand other’s point of view. Someone who spends three hours per week volunteering to teach illiterate prisoners to read may see problems differently than those who would never step foot inside a prison or juvenile detainment center.
In other words, walk a few miles in other’s shoes.
The WSJ covered a Chicago company that hires ex-cons. The owners regularly fire felons for tardiness, behavior issues, and more.
One would think the owner despises these workers. But he sees it as his responsibility to help them. “I don’t want to see them fail,” Progressive’s operations manager said. “I feel like I will fail as well.”
Former inmates face severe problems. Stephen Walters, the owner of Progressive’s, said he struggles to decide how much leniency to give employees.
“Just” and “fair” laws are complicated. But thinking from behind the Veil of Ignorance is one step toward creating better laws.