Studies On John Rawls’ Original Position

There is no doubt the importance of the idea of Original Position (hereinafter referred to as "OP"), for which runs through most of Rawls’theory of justice. Related studies abroad are voluminous, while domestic scholars pays inadequate attention. Even if they focus on OP, most of their studies are from the perspectives of philosophy, political science and ethics, other than a specific view of law. Fortunately, in recent years, papers by and about Rawls has been widely translated, so that in-depth study of the methodology is more feasible and convenient.Both has retained the value of freedom and equality and successfully overcome the difficulties the Natural State encountered at the same time, OP inherits the the tradition of the Contract Theory. Besides, OP absorbs the merits of various thinkers, especially Hume’s Circumstances of Justice and Kant’s Autonomy, which are masterly combined by Rawls.Broadly speaking, OP is a fair thought experiment through which Rawls concludes the justice as fairness for a democratic society. The reason we call Rawls’justice as fairness is that OP the methodology itself is fair. As the logical starting point of Rawls’whole theory, OP translate the problems such as "what is justice?"," how to achieve justice?", "what are fair terms of social cooperation for free and equal citizens?", into concrete method in which variables can be adjusted, from choosing some principles of justice within all the classical alternatives, to, searching the terms of cooperation free and equal citizens would agree to under fair conditions, so as making the debates of justice from hollow and vague definitions or war of words to operable and visual discussions.Here goes the specific parts of OP:without interference from historical traditions and specific systems, the basic structure of society is fair; nobody has more advantages than others, the Veil of Ignorance is fair; stimulating people to make choices for conceptions of justice and meeting the diversity of pursuits of people at the same time, Primary Good is fair; Citizens in a modern democratic society are the prototype of the chooser in OP, which provides a rare reference for the balance of the varies constitutional values; the Maximin Criterion itself is not set for fairness, but the inevitable result under all restrictions of the OP. The two principles of justice are proposed primarily against utilitarianism which is defeated in OP in the full sense as classical utilitarianism and have not gain any advantage as the Principle of Restricted Utility.Once upon proposed, OP has been criticized severely. Overall, regardless of the manner, OP is widely questioned to has implied substantive conception of justice. As a matter of fact, the solely substantive basis of OP is the free and equal moral person necessary for constitution. OP is designed for fair rules of the game, fairness of which is guaranteed by making the choosers come and go freely. As for the basic structure of society, Amartya Sen deems OP too closed, not yet getting rid of the shackles of regional vision. But OP and the society it achieves are idealized which are different from the method of comparison proposed by Sen, doesn’t attempting to solve practical problems of a society. Through the basic structure of society, differences in the distribution of justice between Nozick and Rawls also can be understood. Rawls is not intend to redistribution which are strongly opposed by Nozick, but rather to evaluate and ensure the fair rules of the game. As for the deputies of citizens in this thought experiment, they are not intend to criticize the reality. It’s meaningful only on the sense of analysis, thus neither inconsistent with reality, nor from history. As for the metaphor of the Veil of Ignorance, we shouldn’t understand it as well as other settings literally, so it is not without bargaining nor the right. What’s more, we shouldn’t set a thinner veil in order to obtain utilitarian. As for Primary good, out of the institutional and practical considerations, not including natural endowments doesn’t means people with high endowments are unfairly treated; Primary good is also not be preset as individualism, on the contrary, it’s the foundation of social cooperation; it also doesn’t need the supplement of basic ability which has realized the differences in human society, because citizens can responsible for themselves, and more complicated problems can be solved later. As for the method of contract OP applied, we rely the confident after our discretion, instead of its binding consent. We are easy to ponder the concept of justice clearly and in an orderly process, so there is no circular reasoning, and it doesn’t matter whether or not a method besides OP towards justice exists, or, whether or not OP exists a real contract. As for the Maximin Criterion, it shouldn’t be considered to has a risk aversion, for the concept of risk is not exists in OP. Based on the considerations of reciprocity, the Maximin Criterion also gives the efficiency a certain weight; also based on the consideration of the extreme importance of the conception of justice selected, citizens would not take the Maximun Criterion which is bound towards utilitarian, losing their most basic securities and opportunities in a society.In summary, OP tries it’s best to exclude all the interference unrelated to justice. Neutrality and objectivity are truly reflected, so it’s worthy to call it a purely procedural justice that has access to the justice as fairness. More far-reaching theoretical significance lies in that OP is not exclusive, every theory or principle is derived from it’s own implicit and unique "OP". The collisions between the various theories is also the collisions between "OP"s as the frame structures which shouldn’t be overlooked. OP’s most significant practical significance lies in it’s exclusion to the arbitrariness of ideology, and further inspires us the foundation of our social cooperation by his justice as fairness that often can be felt.