Content area
Full text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
I
Harsanyi used a device similar to Rawls's veil of ignorance to generate utilitarian conclusions.1 Both Rawls and Harsanyi's veils of ignorance are intended to model the idea of impartiality. Behind both veils of ignorance, individuals deliberate on the assumption that they could end up in anyone's position. However, Rawls's veil of ignorance is in one respect thicker. Behind Rawls's 'thick' veil of ignorance, individuals do not know the likelihood that they may end up in any given person's position. Behind Harsanyi's 'thin' veil of ignorance, they know that they have an equal chance of being in any person's position. This difference has substantial consequences. Under the thin veil of ignorance we have a decision problem under risk, in which case the maximization of expected utility is the preferred solution, and we end up with some form of utilitarianism. Under the thick veil of ignorance, we have a decision problem under uncertainty, in which case maximin, along with several other decision rules, is a plausible candidate as a solution.2 Therefore, whether we use a thick or thin veil of ignorance is of great importance.
The goal behind introducing the veil of ignorance is to ensure that when considering and choosing different principles one does not favour oneself. Since the denizens of the original position lack knowledge of their particular features they cannot choose principles tailored to themselves. However, to achieve this goal we don't need a thick veil of ignorance. The thin veil of ignorance is enough to ensure this kind of impartiality. Accordingly, Rawls seems to lack a rationale for employing the thick veil of ignorance, other than the fact that it produces the results he prefers. This makes the whole procedure question begging. As Parfit puts it:
Rawls himself points out that, since there are different contractualist formulas, he must defend his particular formula. This formula, he writes, must be the one that is 'philosophically most favoured', because it 'best expresses the conditions that are widely thought reasonable to impose on the choice of principles'. Could Rawls claim that, compared with the Equal Chance Formula [Harsanyi's formula], his No Knowledge Formula better expresses these conditions? The answer, I believe, is No. Rawls's veil of ignorance...