Comment in 150 words : “Original position” (2013, 10 Marks)
The original position is the contractual device of John Rawls‘s A Theory of Justice (1971): a hypothetical initial situation of equality in which parties choose principles for the basic structure of society. It plays the role the state of nature played for the classical contractarians, though Rawls generalises John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant “to a higher level of abstraction” and sets Thomas Hobbes aside.
A device of representation, not an event
It is neither historical nor a real bargain. In Political Liberalism (1993) Rawls calls it a device of representation, modelling the fair conditions under which free and equal persons should agree. It is adjusted in reflective equilibrium until its results fit our considered judgements. Its point is that principles are chosen, not imposed.
Its elements
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Parties | Rational, mutually disinterested — neither altruistic nor envious |
| Circumstances of justice | Moderate scarcity, conflicting claims (after David Hume) |
| Formal constraints | Generality, universality, publicity, ordering, finality |
| Alternatives | Utilitarianism, perfectionism, intuitionism, justice as fairness |
| Veil of ignorance | Class, natural assets, conception of the good and generation hidden (later works add race and sex) |
Why it yields fair principles
Denied the knowledge that breeds bias, no party can tailor principles to himself; impartiality is built in, so the choice is acceptable to advantaged and disadvantaged alike. Ranking the alternatives, the parties reject utilitarianism, which could sacrifice some for the aggregate, and adopt equal basic liberties, fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle — terms they can honour under the strains of commitment once the veil lifts.
Critiques
- Ronald Dworkin (1973): “A hypothetical contract is not simply a pale form of an actual contract; it is no contract at all.” Its force derives from a prior right to equal concern and respect.
- Michael Sandel: identical parties do not bargain, they discover; the device presupposes an unencumbered self.
- John C. Harsanyi: an equiprobability chooser picks average utility — design, not agreement, drives the result.
- Amartya Sen (The Idea of Justice, 2009): the device is remote from how actual people reason, seeking one perfectly just arrangement — transcendental institutionalism — when comparing feasible options matters more.
Indian and contemporary relevance
India’s Constitution was an actual compact — “We, the People … give to ourselves” — promising social, economic and political justice. The device still guides design: Daniel Chandler‘s Free and Equal (2023) uses it to argue for a property-owning democracy.
Conclusion
The original position is best read as a model of impartial reasoning, not a contract. That concedes Dworkin’s premise but not his conclusion: as a test of rational, universal principles it remains the most influential justificatory device in contemporary political theory.