(Click here to continue on the main path)

I agree with Fred that the Original Position isn't really a contract at all. There is no possibility of negotiation between parties. We might as well think of it as one rational being instead of a group.

Beyond that, I'd like to make a couple of points. First of all, I'm not sure that the Original Position should be set up just the way Rawls sets it up. The utilitarian philosopher R. M. Hare has criticized Rawls a lot. He believes that with a few changes in the setup, the parties in the Original Position would very possibly agree on some form of utilitarianism. More specifically, Hare believes that the veil of ignorance surrounding the Original Position does not need to exclude as much knowledge of the world and its history as Rawls excludes. He also believes that a more "economical" veil, one that allowed the parties to know a great deal about the world and its history but not their own position in that world, would not only ensure impartiality, but would also bring them to utilitarian conclusions. In section 30 of his Theory of Justice Rawls suggests that even he might agree.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Rawls defined the veil of ignorance as he did in order to avoid utilitarian conclusions. He has every right to do that; but once we realize it, I think it detracts from the force of his argument. It becomes clear that with a somewhat different veil of ignorance we can have impartiality but we also get principles very different from Rawls' principles. We can't simply accept the veil of ignorance as Rawls defines it.

Second, I'm not sure that the parties in Rawls' Original Position -- defined the way he defines it -- would agree on the two principles he proposes. How do we know what they would agree to? There are people who think that they might agree to some form of utilitarianism. For example, John Harsanyi, who has written on economics and game theory as well as utilitarian ethics, believes that they would choose what is sometimes called average rule utilitarianism.