The Original Position is a central concept in John Rawls's theory of justice, known as "justice as fairness". It is presented as a purely hypothetical situation, not an actual historical state of affairs or a primitive cultural condition. In essence, the Original Position is the appropriate initial status quo which is designed to ensure that the fundamental agreements reached within it are fair. This is where the name "justice as fairness" originates, as it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. The primary purpose of the Original Position is to serve as an expository device or thought experiment. It is used to help clarify the content of the principles of basic social justice and to determine the principles which define justice. The intuitive idea is to think of the first principles of justice as themselves the object of an original agreement in a suitably defined initial situation. Rational persons, concerned to advance their interests, would accept principles in this position of equality to settle the basic terms of their association. The concept of the Original Position is considered the most philosophically favored interpretation of this initial choice situation for the purposes of a theory of justice. A defining feature of the Original Position is the "veil of ignorance". Behind this veil, individuals do not know their place in society, their class position or social status, nor do they know their fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, such as intelligence or strength. The parties are also assumed not to know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. This deliberate exclusion of nearly all particular information is of fundamental importance because, without it, working out a definite theory of justice would be difficult; the bargaining problem would be hopelessly complicated. The veil of ignorance ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. It also ensures that the information available is relevant and is the same at all times, allowing anyone to adopt the perspective at any time, regardless of when they do so or who does so. The parties in the Original Position are characterized as rational beings with their own ends and capable of a sense of justice. They are considered equal. An important stipulation is that the parties are mutually disinterested; they are not willing to have their interests sacrificed to others and take no interest in one another's interests. However, this mutual disinterest in the Original Position does not mean that persons in everyday life who accept the resulting principles are similarly disinterested. The intention behind assuming mutual disinterest is to model human conduct and motives in situations where questions of justice arise due to competing interests, such as the conflicts that characterize a human society rather than an association of saints agreeing on a common ideal. While this might be an oversimplification, it allows for the development of a reasonably comprehensive conception of justice. They are assumed to take their conceptions of the good as given, even if unknown behind the veil, and their aim is to win for themselves the highest index of primary social goods, as this enables them to promote their conception of the good most effectively. They also assume they are capable of a sense of justice and will not enter agreements they know they cannot keep. They also think of themselves as free persons with a highest-order interest in developing and protecting this status. The justification for the principles of justice comes from showing that rational persons in this initial situation would choose them over alternatives. Conceptions of justice are ranked by their acceptability to persons so circumstanced. This connects the theory of justice with the theory of rational choice. The problem of justification is settled by working out a problem of deliberation: ascertaining which principles it would be rational to adopt given the contractual situation. Ideally, the argument aims to be strictly deductive, showing that the principles' acknowledgment is the only choice consistent with the full description of the Original Position, though it is acknowledged that this falls short and is highly intuitive. It is important to understand why we should take any interest in this hypothetical situation. The answer is that the conditions embodied in the description of the Original Position are ones that we do in fact accept, or could be persuaded to accept through philosophical reflection. Each aspect of the contractual situation can be given supporting grounds. Thus, the Original Position collects together conditions on principles that we are ready, upon due consideration, to recognize as reasonable limits on fair terms of social cooperation. The Original Position represents assumptions we believe are appropriate when attempting to identify principles of justice, reflecting our assumptions about what should properly count as relevant and irrelevant in deliberations. The Original Position is not a general method for resolving all moral dilemmas because resolving particular dilemmas often requires specific knowledge that is excluded by the veil of ignorance. It is limited to the task of constructing first principles of basic social justice. Rawls also presents a sequence of modifications to the Original Position, a "four-stage sequence," where the veil of ignorance is gradually lifted at subsequent stages (like the constitutional convention stage) to apply the chosen principles to specific circumstances, although the Original Position itself remains the first stage for choosing fundamental principles. The motivation of the parties changes in these later stages, becoming a moral motivation to implement the already chosen principles, unlike the purely rational motivation in the Original Position. The concept of the Original Position also serves as a procedural interpretation of Kant's conception of autonomy and the categorical imperative within an empirical theory framework. Acting from the principles chosen in the Original Position is seen as expressing our nature as free and equal rational beings, similar to how Kant's noumenal selves see the world. This procedural conception helps to make these Kantian notions, which might otherwise seem transcendent and lacking connection to human conduct, explicable. The description of the Original Position is said to resemble the point of view of noumenal selves and what it means to be a free and equal rational being. While the Original Position is the "most philosophically favored" interpretation, it is recognized that there are many possible interpretations of the initial situation, which could lead to different contract theories. These variations depend on how the contracting parties are conceived, their beliefs and interests, and the alternatives available to them. Ethical variations of the initial situation are also possible, for example, by assuming the parties accept certain moral principles beforehand. The connection between the Original Position and justification is also understood in the context of "reflective equilibrium". The Original Position is a device to help us move toward reflective equilibrium. Reflective equilibrium is achieved when our considered judgments about justice align with the principles chosen from the Original Position. If there's a mismatch, we may revise either our judgments or the conditions of the Original Position. The justification comes from the mutual support between the judgments and the principles derived from this appropriately constructed hypothetical situation. The construction of the Original Position is an attempt to gain a perspective from which to extend agreement on principles of justice. In summary, the Original Position is a hypothetical construct in Rawls's theory of justice as fairness. It is a fair initial situation, characterized by a veil of ignorance that removes morally arbitrary information. Rational, equal, and mutually disinterested parties in this situation choose principles of justice to govern the basic structure of society. This choice models a process of rational deliberation that aims to yield principles that are justifiable because they would be agreed to under fair conditions. It is a tool for philosophical reflection, helping to clarify our understanding of justice and guiding us towards a state of reflective equilibrium between our considered judgments and the principles derived. It also provides a procedural interpretation of Kantian concepts of autonomy and rationality. The **veil of ignorance** is an essential feature of the Original Position, which itself corresponds to the state of nature in traditional social contract theory, though it is a purely hypothetical situation. The primary purpose of the veil of ignorance is to ensure that the principles of justice are chosen under fair conditions. Behind the veil of ignorance, individuals in the Original Position are deprived of nearly all particular information about themselves and their society. Specifically, they do not know: - Their place in society. - Their class position or social status. - Their fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, such as intelligence, strength, and the like. - Their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. This includes their aversion to risk or liability to optimism or pessimism. - The particular circumstances of their own society, such as its economic or political situation, its size, level of economic advance, institutional structure, or natural environment. - The course of history or which kinds of societies presently exist. What the parties behind the veil _do_ know includes general facts about human society and the circumstances of justice. They also know the first principles of social theory and other relevant theories, as well as the general consequences of these facts. For example, they know that their society is subject to the circumstances of justice, meaning there is both a conflict and identity of interests, and that each person has a conception of their good. They also know that the principles they choose must be stable and tend to generate their own support when embodied in society's basic structure. They are also assumed to know that they have moral convictions, though not what those specific convictions are. The deliberate exclusion of particular information by the veil of ignorance serves several crucial functions: 1. **Ensuring Fairness and Impartiality:** The veil ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since the parties are unaware of their own particular situation, they cannot tailor principles to favor their own condition or exploit social and natural circumstances to their advantage. This creates a symmetric initial situation where the agreements reached are fair. The veil prevents factors that are morally arbitrary from influencing the choice of principles. 2. **Facilitating Unanimous Agreement:** By removing knowledge of specific differences and competing interests that would otherwise set people at odds, the veil of ignorance makes possible a unanimous choice of a particular conception of justice. Since everyone is similarly situated behind the veil, they are convinced by the same arguments, allowing the agreement to be viewed from the standpoint of any one person. Without this limitation on knowledge, the bargaining problem would be "hopelessly complicated," making it difficult, if not impossible, to work out a definite theory of justice. Unanimity in these circumstances represents a "genuine reconciliation of interests". 3. **Forcing General Considerations:** The parties are obliged to evaluate principles solely on the basis of general considerations, not their particular circumstances. This means they must consider the consequences of their choice for everyone in society, as they do not know where they themselves will end up. The evaluation of principles must proceed in terms of the general consequences of their public recognition and universal application, assuming everyone complies. 4. **Connecting Justice to Rational Choice:** The veil of ignorance, along with other conditions of the Original Position, characterizes a problem of rational deliberation where the parties choose principles concerned to advance their interests as equals. Their primary aim is to secure primary social goods, which enable them to promote their unknown conceptions of the good most effectively. The veil ensures that this rational choice is made impartially, leading to principles that free and equal persons would assent to under fair circumstances. Although the parties are mutually disinterested, the veil of ignorance forces them to consider the implications for everyone, preventing the theory from being egoistic in the everyday sense. 5. **Serving as an Expository Device:** The veil of ignorance is a key part of the Original Position as a thought experiment or expository device. It helps make vivid the restrictions we consider reasonable to impose on arguments for principles of justice. We can simulate the deliberations behind the veil by reasoning in accordance with its restrictions, helping us clarify and order our thoughts about justice. 6. **Relating to Reflective Equilibrium:** The construction of the Original Position, including the veil of ignorance, is intended to help us move toward reflective equilibrium. The conditions of the Original Position, reflecting what we consider reasonable constraints on principles, are checked against our considered judgments about justice. If the principles chosen from behind the veil match or refine our judgments, we move towards a state of reflective equilibrium where our principles and judgments coincide. 7. **Kantian Interpretation:** The veil of ignorance is linked to a procedural interpretation of Kant's conception of autonomy and the categorical imperative. By removing the influence of natural and social contingencies, the veil allows parties to act as free and equal rational beings (noumenal selves), choosing principles that express this nature and are independent of arbitrary factors. The veil embodies conditions of objectivity, forcing us to adopt a point of view that everyone can share. The sources emphasize that the Original Position and the veil of ignorance are purely hypothetical. The agreement reached behind the veil is never actually entered into, but its significance comes from the fact that the conditions defining the situation are ones we can accept upon reflection as reasonable limits on fair social cooperation. The veil of ignorance helps embody these conditions by ensuring that the choice of principles is not biased by irrelevant information. While the Original Position, with its veil of ignorance, is primarily designed for choosing the fundamental principles of basic social justice, it is not meant for resolving all moral dilemmas, as these often require specific knowledge excluded by the veil. Rawls envisions a "four-stage sequence" where the veil is gradually lifted in subsequent stages (like the constitutional convention) to apply the chosen principles to more specific circumstances, though the Original Position itself remains the first stage. In essence, the veil of ignorance is the mechanism within the Original Position that enforces fairness by removing knowledge of factors that should be irrelevant to the choice of fundamental principles governing society's basic structure. It compels rational, self-interested individuals to choose principles that are impartial and acceptable from all possible standpoints, because they don't know which standpoint they will occupy.