The Veil of Ignorance, Revisited
How do we find truth in today's politics?
The American political philosopher John Rawls proposed a thought experiment to answer the following question: in terms of wealth and power, what does a fair society look like? The only way to find the truth, Rawls posited, is to pull people out of reality and place them behind a veil of ignorance in which they know absolutely nothing about themselves. They don’t know their own age, race, gender, sexual orientation, or personality. They don’t know if they are healthy or sick or disabled. They don’t know anything about their political affiliation, religion, career, or socioeconomic status. All they know is that they are human, and that they live in a certain society. For instance, if I were placed behind the veil, I would understand that I’m a person who lives in America, but nothing more.
Now imagine that many people are placed behind the veil and then asked to vote on two choices for a new society—a society they will reenter after the veil is lifted. Let’s say the first choice is a deeply unequal society, in which the top 1% of the population holds more wealth and power than the bottom 90% combined. The second choice is a society where wealth and power are more evenly distributed, similar to a bell curve, with perhaps slight advantages for those at the very top and slight disadvantages for those at the very bottom.
Everything else is held equal. There is an equal amount of power and wealth to be distributed in both scenarios. If folks behind the veil come from a capitalist, democratic system, then that’s the system they will reenter. Conversely, if they live in a socialistic communist state, that’s the system they reenter. They are not voting on a new government or economic system, but simply being asked to choose between different degrees of egalitarianism.
Rawls argues that people behind the veil will collectively choose the “fairer” option (in this case, the second option) every time. He goes on to say that you could run this experiment a billion times with countless permutations, but it wouldn’t matter. People behind the veil will always choose the “fairer” option because they don’t know their status in life or where they’ll fit in a post-veil society.
Sure, you can quibble over the assumptions behind this thought experiment. Maybe after people reenter their new, fairer society, human nature will takeover and mess everything back up. Maybe it’s impossible to separate the system from the outcome. Maybe capitalist, democratic societies are incapable of maintaining greater levels of equality as described in the second option.
The historical record, however, says otherwise. Plenty of capitalist and democratic countries in the 21st century have figured out how to more evenly distribute wealth and power than, say, the United States. And it’s also true that many socialist and communist systems throughout history have suffered from staggering levels of inequality thanks to a small, corrupt, and ludicrously rich ruling class.
Regardless, even if they were true, these objections are besides the point. The broader point, according to Rawls, is that humans, when removed from their biases and self-interest, would collectively choose to live in a much fairer society than the one they inhabit. He uses this to further argue that, for a political position to be morally justified, it must be one that advocates for a fairer, more equitable world. (I’m not necessarily endorsing this view, just restating the argument. If you want an opposing view, read the works of Robert Nozick, Rawls’ faculty colleague and philosophical nemesis.)
While the whole veil of ignorance idea seems incredibly abstract, it hits closer to home when you remember that we all exist behind the veil before we are born, and have no knowledge or power over the circumstances we are born into. It’s a powerful way to assess how society is structured, how it ought to look like, and our place in it.
The Veil of Ignorance, Applied to… Everything Else?
Why do I want to revisit this concept? Well, I’ve been thinking recently about the fairest way to evaluate a variety of political issues, ranging from the economy to social welfare, and I felt the veil of ignorance is an under-appreciated tool to look at other topics.
It’s very difficult for anyone (myself included) to approach politics without the preconceived notions and beliefs we’ve collected over a lifetime. But let’s imagine for a moment that we are capable of placing ourselves behind the proverbial veil of ignorance, so we have no choice but to evaluate the issues on the merits.
The purpose of this blog is to do just that. More specifically, I will use the best available information to evaluate a variety of issues from the perspective of someone someone who doesn’t know anything and has no vested interest in which side comes out ahead. I will “feed” my veil persona with the best available information and data, so that they can make the most informed decision possible (akin to training a new AI model). I would love for you, the reader, to join me in this mindset, and together we’ll interrogate our own assumptions and hopefully learn something new.
Since it’s election season, I’m going to start by evaluating the performance of the two major American political parties—at both the federal and state level. Now, I recognize that many aspects of politics can only be considered through the prism of our values, and that some of the most important questions are fought over how we want to live and how much control we cede to those in power. So, at least to start, I plan to ignore highly-charged value-driven issues in favor of policy questions that can be more tangibly measured, like the economy or crime.
I’ll attempt to compare party performance by using information, data, and statistics dating back to the beginning of the Kennedy Administration. This is for a few reasons. First, between 1961 and 2024 we have witnessed exactly eight Republican presidential terms and eight Democratic presidential terms, so this keeps things relatively fair. Second, the identities of each party have remained largely consistent since the 1960s, which is when the southern faction of the Democratic party broke away in response to JFK/LBJ’s push for civil rights, which the Republican party quickly coopted. And third, in order to keep this manageable and interesting, I simply need to draw the line somewhere.
Lastly, a note about myself. I am not doing this to prove anything or push an agenda. I have no great affinity for either political party. I simply enjoy writing and making provocative arguments. If you disagree with something I write, feel that I am drawing unfair conclusions, or omit important evidence, let me know in the comments. I’m doing this for fun on top of a full time job, so I can’t promise a consistent post schedule, but I’ll do my best. Thanks for reading!