Related Ideas

Although Rawls regards himself as a philosopher working in the social contract tradition of Locke and Kant, his use of the word 'contract' can be misleading. David Lyons remarks that Rawls' contract is a contract only in a very "attenuated" sense. There is really no disagreement or bargaining among the parties in the original position. It is not the case, for example, that they work out a compromise between different interests; since no one knows what his or her specific interests will be. There are no "relevant differences" among the parties.

Some critics have suggested that there is no function for more than one party in the original position. There may as well be a single party calculating his or her interests behind the veil of ignorance. Everyone comes to the same conclusion because everyone is effectively the same as everyone else.

Rawls might reply that there is a way in which this criticism illustrates one of his points; namely, that the interests of the parties converge once the veil of ignorance is imposed. but this, he might say, gives further support to his conclusions.

Reference: See Davie Lyons, "Nature and Soundness of the Contract and Coherence Arguments" in Reading Rawls edited by Norman Daniels.