medium · GMAT Verbal
Passage: In the realm of distributive justice, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice introduced the thought experiment known as the veil of ignorance. Rawls argued that to determine the fair principles of a society, one should imagine a state where no one knows their social status, class, race, gender, or natural talents. Behind this veil, rational actors would be unable to tailor principles to their own advantage. Rawls contended that these actors would choose a system that maximizes the position of the least advantaged, a principle he called the difference principle. He argued that since anyone could find themselves at the bottom of the social hierarchy once the veil is lifted, it is rational to ensure that even the worst-off are provided with a robust set of primary goods. Critics from the libertarian tradition, such as Robert Nozick, argue that Rawls's focus on outcomes ignores the importance of how wealth is acquired. For Nozick, justice is found in the fairness of individual transactions and the protection of property rights, rather than in the achievement of a particular social distribution. The primary function of the 'veil of ignorance' is to:
- Demonstrate that the difference principle is the only possible outcome of rational choice.
- Allow individuals to accurately predict which social class they will belong to.
- Provide a historical account of how early social hierarchies were formed.
- Ensure that the most talented individuals are incentivized to contribute to society.
- Eliminate personal bias from the process of selecting social and economic principles.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More GMAT Verbal practice
- What logical role do the first two statements play?
- Which of the following is the conclusion?
- A gardener says: 'All roses in this garden require daily wat… — What is the role of the st
- What is the conclusion?
- What is the conclusion?
- Which statement is the conclusion?
- What is the conclusion?
- What logical role does the first sentence play in the researcher's argument?