The AskPhilosophers logo.

Justice
Philosophers

Does Rawls consider inborn abilities an important determinant of social status? I haven't read his entire text in A Theory of Justice, but when he mentions the veil of ignorance, is he considering social status more or less a matter of fate?
Accepted:
June 21, 2008

Comments

Allen Stairs
July 13, 2008 (changed July 13, 2008) Permalink

I have a feeling I'm missing your point, but I suspect Rawls would have said that what determines social status is complicated. I doubt he'd describe it as "fate" since it seems pretty clearly to be a combination of things: accidents of birth (the social status of one's family), partly, one assumes, one's abilities, , and all this against the background of the social arrangements of the particular society. In any case, the people behind the veil of ignorance don't know their social status, but not because this is or isn't a matter of "fate." It's because if they did, it would presumably make a difference to the social arrangement they favored, and that misses the point of the veil.

  • Log in to post comments

Alexander George
July 23, 2008 (changed July 23, 2008) Permalink

If by "fate" you mean out of your control, then I think Rawls would have answered your first question: "Yes and no". Your social status is determined by elements out of your control such as the aptitudes you are born with, the lucky or unlucky breaks that come your way, and the manner in which the society into which you are born values certain talents or activities over others. But it's also true that your social status is partly determined by your efforts: it's always up to you whether to give everything you own away.

I agree with Allen that the reason those behind the veil of ignorance do not know their social status is that this knowledge would influence which principles of justice they would favor, and indeed "that misses the point of the veil." But what is its point? Well, one thing to say is that it's designed to make sure that those behind the veil do not make use of morally irrelevant information when selecting principles of justice. One's social status is morally irrelevant precisely because it is importantly determined by elements extraneous to what characterizes us as moral beings. So I agree with you in seeing a connection between (part of) what determines one's social status and why knowledge of one's social status is obscured by the veil.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/2203?page=0
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org