In A Theory of Justice, philosopher John Rawls attempted to develop a framework for creating just rules. He suggests that rules should be derived from an "original position," a hypothetical condition similar to the state of nature that precedes a citizen entering the social contract. When one begins to create legal rules from the original position, Rawls says one should do so from behind a hypothetical "veil of ignorance." This veil would prevent the creator from knowing "his place in society, his class position or social status ... his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like." Rawls thinks that the "accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstance" should not automatically entitle people to political or economic advantage when structuring a legal system. The purpose of this veil is to ensure "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 all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain."

Rawls then suggests that two principles would flow from the use of the veil by one at the original position. First, one would "[require] equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties." Second, one would "[hold] that social and economic inequalities, for example, inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society." He states that "[t]he intuitive idea is that since everyone's well-being depends upon a scheme of cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life, the division of advantages should be such as to draw forthwith the willing cooperation of everyone taking part in it, including those less well situated." He concludes that "[t]hese principles rule out justifying institutions on the grounds that the hardships of some are offset by a greater good in the aggregate. It may be expedient, but it is not just that some should have less in order that others may prosper.”

What is your reaction to Rawls' theory? Is it helpful, wise, foolish, dangerous, or what? Should it be used by a voter? A legislator? To judge?