The Veil of Ignorance - the Evolution of a Sociopolitical Revolution
Part III
Many
may recall the original concept of the social contract as a basis for an
individual moral foundation created by those principles that were fair and
impartial to all it affected. Philosopher John Rawls “calls his conception
justice as fairness. His aim in designing the original position is to describe
an agreement situation that is fair among all the parties to the hypothetical
social contract. He assumes that if the parties to the social contract are
fairly situated and take all relevant information into account, then the
principles they would agree to be also fair.”
In
the original intention, the agreement contained within the social contract
would transfer to become mutual principles of agreement that focused on
fairness. He (Rawls) proceeded to focus on mutual benefits, opportunities,
equality and impartiality of those principles and processes. Remember this was
about making the best choices based on the morality of the situation and the
need to come up with an ethical and practical solution.
Looking at the different ways to
define a fair agreement, one must include relevant facts into consideration
that enter into an equal purpose or opportunity for people to benefit from
while still benefiting from the fundamental principles of fairness and
impartiality. It assumes that what transpires is a mutual agreement that take
into consideration societal dynamics that are equal in values and draw or drive
those values based on their racial and ethnic group, social class and
occupations. Also included and determined to be a factor to remain fair was
their wealth or income, their religious and moral beliefs etc.
Thus what we are looking at here are
equal levels of social classes, wealth, customs and practices and the fact they
are equal and free to engage in such agreements under their social and
political systems. This would encompass their natural rights as well as their
political jurisdiction to engage in such a beneficial contract. It would also
establish the legitimacy according to their constitutional rights and political
rights.
Today, we have witness what the
biggest problem was with this type of arrangement. One can see how gender,
wealth or lack of wealth and the absence of mutual respective religious and
cultural beliefs can distort the agreement and deprive one or the other, or
both, equal political and social rights to occupy social and political
positions of authority or power.
This process of various inequities
or having less parity in status, wealth or influence does nothing to impact the
right or qualification who can vote but rather, who can hold office. The
problem with this arrangement, of course, is that gender and lack of wealth
are, like absence of religious belief, not good reasons for depriving people of
their equal political rights or opportunities to occupy social and political
positions.
These reasons are not morally
relevant for deciding who qualifies to vote, hold office, and actively
participate in governing and administering society. John Rawls suggests that
for such reasons, a “social contract results in this unacceptable outcome is
that it transpires (hypothetically) under unfair conditions of a state of
nature.
He further writes, “where the
parties have complete knowledge of their characteristics and situations—their
gender, wealth, social class, talents and skills, religious convictions, etc.
Socially powerful and wealthy parties then can rely on knowledge of their
“threat advantage” to extract favorable terms from those in less favorable
positions. Consequently the parties' judgments are biased by their knowledge of
their circumstances and are insufficiently impartial.”
“The remedy for such biases of
judgment is to redefine the initial situation. Rather than a state of nature
Rawls situates the parties to his social contract so that they do not have
access to factual knowledge that can distort their judgments and result in
unfair principles.” (Rawls)
Rawls's original position is an
initial situation wherein the parties are without information that enables them
to tailor principles of justice favorable to their personal circumstances.
Since that position is no longer honored or revered like it was before the
evolution occurred, we are now engaged in class positioning, wealth status and
other political advantages that gives certain people more power and leverage
like never before.
No longer a battle of wits,
intelligence or equality, conducted on a fair and impartial foundation but
rather more on the principles of deprivation of impartialities and fairness in
the process chosen. Herein, we can assume the parties involved have lost the
moral connection and do not know their conceptions of the good or their will as
the principles have been altered to serve a few rather than many.
This in itself created a veil of
ignorance which deprives the parties of all knowledge of particular facts about
themselves, about one another, and even about their society and its history.
Hence the connection to society has been breached or broken and the mutual
respect, obligations and needs have been severely fractured.
They know then more about the
general tendencies of human behavior and psychological development, about
biological evolution, and about how economic markets work, including
neo-classical price theory of supply and demand. In the end, a sociopolitical
coup de grace has occurred and all agreements based on fairness, impartiality
and justice have been tossed out the systems and new rules are applied that
benefit the few and ignore the needs or desires of the majority they were
supposed to represent or take care of under their agreement to hold public
office.
In all reality, there is no veil of
darkness or ignorance as no one is ignorant of the facts as they stand or exist.
In fact, they know more of all kinds of facts about the other parties, groups
or persons and extort those to benefit their own agenda or relative interest in
controlling the political process ignoring justice, fairness and
impartialities. If a veil really does exist, it is indeed one of ignorance as
the truth is hidden or kept in the dark rather than in the open or public
spaces.
This struggle was created due to
conflicts and gluttonous behaviors driven by greed and lust for more power,
influence and control. Ultimately, those with the most money or wealth can rule
any entity and impose any regulation they desire as they occupy the chair of
authority and make the legislation for others to live or work by as a matter of
regulations and laws.
