Lecture 16: The Rawlsian Social Contract

What this lecture covers

This lecture opens the course's treatment of John Rawls, the third and final Enlightenment thinker in the social contract unit, following utilitarianism and Marxism. It explains why Rawls, despite writing essentially one book, became the most cited figure in twentieth-century political philosophy, and situates him relative to Nozick, whom the course covered first for pedagogical reasons even though Rawls came first historically and Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia was written largely in response to him.

The lecture introduces the mechanics of Rawls's thought experiment, the original position and veil of ignorance, using a cake-cutting analogy to show how the device is built to produce a chosen outcome rather than to prove it independently. It also explains Rawls's "resourcism," his shift from debating utility to distributing primary goods, and works through his reasoning about religious liberty as a first worked example of his general principle of justice.

Key ideas

• Rawls's outsized influence: despite writing essentially one major book, A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls is arguably the most cited philosopher of the last third of the twentieth century, and Nozick's book exists largely as a reaction to his.
• The original position and veil of ignorance: a hypothetical choice situation in which you design a society's basic rules without knowing your own race, sex, class, abilities, or beliefs, so you cannot bias the rules in your own favor.
• The cake-cutting analogy: giving the knife to the person who gets the last slice guarantees an equal division, but the example already assumes equality is desirable and that people act self-interestedly; the original position works the same way, structured to produce Rawls's preferred outcome.
• Comparative, not axiomatic, reasoning: Rawls does not claim to derive his principles from first principles alone; he argues they beat rival principles (like utilitarianism) when compared from behind the veil of ignorance, and would revise his view if a better principle were shown to do so too.
• Rawls as more Hobbesian than Lockean: like Hobbes, Rawls argues any rational person would agree to his principles, rather than claiming an actual agreement occurred among particular people.
• Resourcism: instead of arguing over utility or welfare, Rawls shifts the debate to primary goods, basic resources like liberties, opportunities, and income and wealth that anyone would want more of regardless of their specific life plans.
• The general conception of justice: all social resources should be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution works to everyone's advantage.
• Reasoning from the least advantaged person: for a given liberty, Rawls compares the most disadvantaged person under different possible regimes, not out of sympathy for them, but because a principle they would choose is one that is genuinely universalizable.

Walkthrough

Why Rawls matters (1:03)

The lecture explains that political philosophy was considered a minor field in the 1950s and 60s, making Rawls's later influence surprising. It notes Rawls invented both moves that later revived social contract theory (replacing natural law with Kantian ethics, and treating the contract as hypothetical rather than actual), and that Nozick, though covered earlier in the course for pedagogical reasons, was reacting directly to Rawls's work. The lecture also notes that, unlike traditional "greats" such as Locke or Mill, Rawls has no broader metaphysics or epistemology; his entire contribution centers on one dense, much-revised book.

The cake-cutting analogy and the original position (12:23)

Using the classic "fair way to cut a cake" puzzle, the lecture shows that a procedure (give the knife to the person who gets the last slice) only demonstrates fairness if you already accept that equal division is desirable and that people act self-interestedly. Rawls's original position, the lecture argues, has the same structure: it's an expository device that leads to a predetermined outcome, so the real philosophical work lies in the independent argument for why that outcome is desirable, not in the thought experiment itself.

Designing society behind a veil of ignorance (16:30)

The lecture details what people know and don't know in the original position: general facts like moderate scarcity and basic laws of psychology and economics, but nothing about their own race, sex, class, abilities, or beliefs. This is Rawls's "procedural expression of the categorical imperative," designed to force reasoning about what would be desirable regardless of who you turn out to be, and it proceeds comparatively, testing Rawls's principles against rival theories like utilitarianism.

Resourcism: from utility to primary goods (26:51)

The lecture explains Rawls's second major innovation: shifting debate away from utility or welfare, which had left utilitarianism stuck between an "objectivist" version that could sacrifice individuals for the aggregate and a "subjectivist" version that barred almost any redistribution. Rawls instead focuses on primary goods, resources like liberties, opportunities, and income and wealth that anyone would want more of regardless of their particular goals, arguing this focus better matches what a state can realistically act on.

Applying the theory: religious liberty (38:06)

Working through Rawls's principle that liberties should be distributed as extensively as possible while remaining compatible with equal liberty for all, the lecture applies it to whether a society should have an established religion. Rawls's method, the lecture explains, is to compare the most disadvantaged person under each possible arrangement, not out of sympathy, but because a principle even the most disadvantaged person would choose is genuinely universalizable. The conclusion is that a believer under disestablishment (illustrated with US fundamentalists) has more religious freedom than a nonbeliever under an established religion (illustrated with non-fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia or Iran), which is why disestablishment is the Rawlsian choice, even though, the lecture notes, this makes the principle non-neutral rather than neutral among religious views.

Before you watch

• Watch the two lectures on Nozick, "Appropriating Locke Today" and "Rights as Side Constraints and the Minimal State," since this lecture repeatedly contrasts Rawls's approach with Nozick's, even though Rawls's ideas came first historically.
• Recall the course's earlier critique of utilitarianism's objectivist and subjectivist variants (including the utility monster and the "Trump and the bag lady" example), since Rawls's resourcism is presented as a response to that impasse.

Check your understanding

1. Why does the lecture argue that the original position and veil of ignorance function more as an expository device than as independent proof that Rawls's principles are correct?
2. What kind of information are people denied in the original position, and why does Rawls design it that way?
3. What is "resourcism," and why does Rawls prefer focusing on primary goods over debating utility or welfare?
4. Why does the lecture say that reasoning from the standpoint of the least advantaged person is a "self-interested" move rather than a "bleeding heart" one?
5. How does Rawls's reasoning lead to a preference for disestablished religion, and why does the lecture argue this makes his theory non-neutral rather than neutral?