Related Ideas

It is sometimes said that only persons of a rather conservative (i.e., risk-avoiding) temperament would adopt Rawls' principles. After all, the principles reduce our risks by improving the worst possible outcome; but some people enjoy taking risks for the sake of big rewards. Isn't Rawls simply making the mistake of assuming that everyone is cautious?

Perhaps not. Certainly Rawls denies that he is making any assumptions about temperaments or personalities. Instead, he believes that the original position is constructed such that his principles would be chosen logically as a matter of prudence. Keep in mind that the parties in the original position know nothing in particular about the society they will live in. They are behind what is sometimes called a "thick" veil of ignorance.

It is interesting to ask what difference it would make if the veil of ignorance were not so thick. Suppose the parties knew that they would be living in a fairly affluent society and that the likelihood that they would be very poor is rather low. Would it still be prudent to adopt the maximin strategy?

Reference: