Rawls states that in order to create justice through equality, society must be then set up in an impartial, unbiased standing. Those helping to draw up the social contract of society must, first of all, have equal stance in their decision-making capabilities. Beyond that, they must be under a “veil of ignorance”: not knowing their future place in society, the societal type or hierarchy, what generation they would be, or what their life goals would be. Furthermore, Rawls remarks that this committee must be disinterested in each other, rational in their want of the basic necessities for life, and not envious if those around one gain more than oneself. Finally, they must be of enough societal wisdom to administer “just” principles without creating a strain on the public. A pretty lengthy set of requirements, I might conclude.

With this committee established to draw up a contract for society, Rawls presupposes two things that this committee will determine; the first being equal rights given to everyone with the society. The second idea is an economic one, beginning with the equal distribution of wealth. If such an instance occurred when economic incentives were needed, Rawls proposes the “maximin” ideal, thus “maximizing the minimum.” In this concept, no economic incentive would be allowed without it benefiting everyone, especially the minimum. In respect to the concepts of financial solutions over time, Rawls claims that the committee would develop a savings for future generations, since they are ignorant to their generational claim in this still-veiled society.

These ideas set forth by John Rawls are no doubt slightly socialist in their means, as well as universally applicable in some of their expansiveness, but let us now critique this concept of society and justice with logic.

The committee that Rawls speaks of seems to have some inconsistencies in its nature. Let it be known that I am not quite sure why this society is being built from nothing; it seems a bit reminiscent of year zero and the Pol Pot regime personally. Rawls ignores the fact that for this society to rise up that we must first abolish our previous society, but perhaps I suppose ahead of myself: let us cross that bridge when we come to it. Let us continue now with Rawls’ presupposed ideas of the committee. We are told that this committee must be under a “veil of ignorance,” but even the human mind cannot disregard common sense. For example, Rawls speaks of the committee members being ignorant of their generational habituations within this new society, but it is obvious that we have certain generations capable only of certain things: who would let a child run a factory, or make an old man work construction sites 12 hours a day? To ignore these societal biases, one would virtually have to be removed from one’s own mind entirely. The book brings up a good point here with the recollection of some Marxist commentaries upon Rawls’ work. Marxists argue that the notion that all human beings are free-thinking, rational, and equal is a biased conception within itself. In Marxist theory, the separation of human cognition from social class is an invalid assumption, thus the deviation from self seems more than a bit improbable.

It seems, that once we have established this grand, broad-sweeping dark cloak of unawareness, we have lost our individuality as well. Lebacqz recalls the point that many critics make about the “veil of ignorance,” is that it seems that those on the committee can simply be condensed into a singular person, since they all seem to arrive at a unanimous assumption of what is “just.” Rawls’ asserts that the “veil of ignorance” is a test of sorts that any one can administer to view the perspective given, but if Rawls’ admits to controlling all of the conceptual notions about society, as well as the circumstances, why wouldn’t the presupposed ideas he relates be proven to be true? Many critics seem to express this sentiment, as well as the notion that Rawls’ logic seems circular.

It seems a great paradox as well that Rawls calls for this “veil of ignorance” and yet also calls for a great understanding of human culture in order to help. I believe he ignores the fact that we are but human, and currently our biases prevent us from looking beyond our own selves completely. Unfortunately in the society that Rawls draws up, enlightenment doesn’t seem to be getting any closer, either.

Rawls’ first notion seems logical enough and ensures basic human liberties to the public, but his economical decisions seemed flawed. Although the concept of “maximin” seems to be a just way of removing injustice from others, it does not economically address the situation of justice. If we are to allow the instance of financial discrepancies, who is to say that by continually offering economic incentives that those who are paid less could keep afloat in the future of the community? Is it not probable that the financial divergence factor could enlarge?

John Rawls’ has moved beyond our Utilitarian precursor in the fact that his sense of justice allows equality for all, without it being removed in sacrifice for the majority. We must not ignore the fact however that the concepts discussed by Rawls’ are still biased and manipulated into a set theory, so the results are conclusive merely by the fact that the setting has been created of his own design. We also must recognize the idea that Rawls’ economic policies are unsound, so our justice has room for corruption. I must reiterate the fact that partially the reason for this corruption in society is partially due to the fact that there are those in society who do not conform to it, and we have no opinion here of Rawls’ on the need to correct this societal measure. I believe that Rawls’ is pursuing society in the wrong direction and without proper reconfiguration he will never attain a just society.