Political Philosophy
Veil of Ignorance
Choose principles without knowing your position — Rawls's thought experiment
The veil of ignorance is a thought experiment by John Rawls (1971) for choosing principles of justice. Imagine: rational agents choosing rules for society from behind a "veil" preventing them from knowing their own race, gender, class, talents, or other attributes. Without this knowledge, can't tilt rules to favor self. Result: rules all could rationally accept. Rawls argues: would choose his two principles of justice (equal liberties + difference principle). Variations: original position. Used: political philosophy, decision theory, ethics. Tests for fairness — would you accept the rule if you didn't know your position?
- AuthorJohn Rawls (1971)
- SetupChoose principles without knowing your position
- ReasoningWithout bias, rules all could accept
- ResultRawls's two principles of justice
- Connected to"Original position" thought experiment
- UseTest fairness of rules and policies
Interactive visualization
Press play, or step through manually. The visualization is yours to drive — try it before reading on.
Watch the 60-second explainer
A condensed visual walkthrough — narrated, captioned, under a minute.
Why veil matters
- Justice theory. Foundation of Rawlsian framework.
- Public policy. Test for fairness.
- Bioethics. Allocation issues.
- Climate justice. Intergenerational fairness.
- Education. Influential thought experiment.
- Critical thinking. Removing bias.
- Decision theory. Choice under uncertainty.
Common misconceptions
- Pure equality. Allows inequalities benefiting worst off.
- Just unrealistic. Hypothetical thought experiment.
- Settles all questions. Many disagree on what would be chosen.
- Veil hides too much. Could veil different things.
- Just for justice. Generalizable to fairness questions.
- Rawls's only contribution. Just one of many tools.
Frequently asked questions
What's the veil of ignorance?
Thought experiment. Imagine: you're choosing the rules for society. But: you don't know what position you'll have. You might be rich, poor, any race, any gender, any talent level. From this "veil of ignorance," what rules would you choose? Rawls: rational principles all could accept, regardless of their position. Removes self-interest bias.
How does it work?
Practical use. (1) Identify rule or policy. (2) Imagine you don't know your status — could be in any position society has. (3) Ask: would I accept this rule? (4) If would only accept if you're in advantaged position: rule unfair. (5) If would accept regardless of position: rule meets test. Provides: test for fairness.
What rules emerge?
Rawls argued: behind veil, you'd choose. (1) Equal basic liberties for all — could be in minority. (2) Difference principle — economic inequalities only when worst-off benefits, since you might be worst-off. (3) Fair equality of opportunity — your talents weren't earned; positions should be earned through effort. Result: liberal egalitarianism with priority for liberties.
What's the original position?
Rawls's term for veil-of-ignorance setup. "Original position" — situation prior to any social arrangement, where rational agents choose principles. Behind veil: agents are rational, self-interested in their own welfare (whoever they turn out to be), risk-averse, knowledgeable about general facts but not specific identities. From this position: principles emerge.
How does it differ from utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism: maximize total utility. Could justify sacrificing one for many. Behind veil: you might be the one. Therefore: wouldn't choose utilitarianism. Would choose principles protecting against worst outcomes. Rawls's argument against utilitarianism: behind veil, no one would accept it. Different decision procedure: maximin (best worst case) vs expected utility.
What are critiques?
Multiple. (1) Why this veil? Other veils possible (only know economic class, etc.). (2) Maximin questionable — people aren't necessarily that risk-averse. (3) Behind veil, do we still have personal identity? (4) Communitarian: actually choose principles as community member, not abstract individual. (5) Cultural: assumes Western individualist framework. Different framings give different conclusions.
How is it applied today?
(1) Political theory: testing fairness of policies. (2) Bioethics: allocation of medical resources. (3) Climate justice: future generations behind veil. (4) Tax policy: would you accept progressive taxation if didn't know your income? (5) Educational equity: allocation of educational resources. Common thought experiment in policy debates.