APA Newsletters
Spring 2000
Volume 99, Number 2

On the whole, what the majority of students complained about was the abstract nature of Rawls’s discussion. In describing the veil, Rawls says:

What many students failed to grasp here was how this abstract description worked "in real life." They wanted an example of what Rawls means by this and a concrete example of how this veil would work.

My solution to the problem of explaining the veil of ignorance has been to develop an exercise that attempts to mimic the conditions of the veil. To the extent that it is possible to create a hypothetical state of affairs, I try to recreate the veil of ignorance within the classroom and then ask the students what fundamental principles they want their society to follow.

After having the students read the Rawls selection, I begin class by having them break up into small groups. Group sizes depend upon how large the class is, but usually putting four or five students in a group works well. Once they are in small groups, I give each group a set of instructions (included here) that explains the exercise and defines the limits of what they are to do. The ultimate objective is to have each student "invent" some sort of persona which they then describe in character profiles that are distributed. No student knows which character profile will be hers when these identities are revealed. Under these conditions, we discuss what basic principles we want to build into our society.

In dividing the students into small groups and having each student create a profile of a specific, concrete individual, the primary aim is to guarantee that there will be a fairly large degree of diversity in terms of the individual profiles. The instructions each group must follow put certain limits on what these profiles may be and therefore assure diversity. Each group must ascertain that the types of characters it creates reflect the differences given in the instructions. There must be some variance in sex, marital status, sexual orientation, ethnic background, education, social and economic class, profession, political views, and natural assets or abilities. In other words, there must be some divergence on all of the particular details that Rawls claims are unknown behind the veil of ignorance. Since these students are not truly behind a veil of ignorance, they all know that things like sex, ethnic background, sexual orientation, education, economic status will affect one’s place in society, class position, social status, etc. So having each group create a diverse number of characters assures that each student knows some people will be "less fortunate" than others. Students usually approach the task of creating these character profiles with a great deal of both seriousness and whimsy. Oftentimes, they will try to make their characters as outlandish as possible, while simultaneously trying to keep the character traits consistent with one another. This type of creativity is especially useful in the next part of the exercise.

Once the characters have been created, I have the students fold the papers on which their profiles are written in an identical manner. I then take them and redistribute them to the students with the provision that they may not open them and look inside. At this point, I explain to them the purpose of creating the character profiles: our classroom is a society and everyone will ultimately have to live as the person described on her piece of paper. Before they may see who they are, we must, as a group, decide on the fundamental principles we want to govern or guide our little community. I start by writing down anything the students mention, whether there is agreement on the principle or not, but I try to make sure that they keep their concerns as general as possible. Many of their initial thoughts involve concrete and mutually exclusive desires (e.g., low taxes, universal health care, property rights, welfare or some other "safety net," the right to bear arms, no discrimination, etc.). After getting about ten or twelve suggestions on the board, the class focuses discussion on which ones we can agree. What generally happens during this discussion is that we eliminate many of the issues where there is substantial disagreement. I also guide the class in subsuming the more particular concerns under general headings like equal rights, equality of opportunity, right to basic necessities of life, and so on. Almost invariably, the members of the class come to a consensus that they want equal rights and they want economic opportunity and some sort of safety net for the disadvantaged. The members of every class are quite certain that they want equal rights of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc., and they generally recognize that these rights cannot be unlimited. Second, every class gets into a heated discussion in deciding what the economic distribution of our community should be. These discussions revolve primarily around whether everyone should have an equal share of economic goods or, if not, how much of a "safety net" we should have for the economically disadvantaged. On the economic issues, agreement is rare; however we usually come to some consensus that we do not want people to be allowed to starve in the streets. In other words, with a little prodding and direction the students usually come up with something very close to Rawls’s two principles of justice as fairness.

One of the key elements in making this assignment work is the continual reminder that each student will live life as the person described on the piece of paper. Since the students created these profiles themselves, they know that there is a good chance they will be socially or economically disadvantaged. In fact, since some of the students go out of their way to create interestingly disadvantaged personalities, they do consider the fact that they could be quite disadvantaged—and they get quite a laugh out of this thought. Of course, there are usually one or two students who are willing to gamble everything that they will come out advantaged. Since Rawls believes that any person behind the veil of ignorance will arrive at the same conception of justice as every other person, this willingness to wager everything eliminates the possibility of achieving Rawls’s unanimous agreement. However, for the purposes of moving the class discussion forward within the context of this exercise, I generally select those principles upon which almost all members of the class agree. Those who wish to hold out agreement may do so, but in establishing some almost unanimously chosen principles, the class can then continue with the discussion of Rawls’s two principles. (Of course, those students who are willing to risk everything serve to set up later questions about whether Rawls is correct in claiming that we choose fundamental principles that minimize our losses and that all rational agents share the same conception of justice.)

The other key feature that makes this exercise useful is the disagreement that invariably arises on economic issues. The fact that the class has such a hard time agreeing on how we want to build in protection for the economically less fortunate leads to questions about whether the difference principle is one we can truly be said to agree upon should we find ourselves behind a veil of ignorance. In short, the criticisms of Rawls’s argument that I bring up in later lectures, and specifically the feminist criticisms of Rawls, tend to be raised in this exercise. So the students not only have a concrete example of how the veil of ignorance works, but they also have a better grasp of certain criticisms of Rawls.

Once the students have come to some sort of an agreement about what principles they want to govern their society, I let them look at who they have turned out to be in this hypothetical construct. This turns out to be a wonderful experience. Everyone reacts and discusses who they are and what the consequences of the principle will be for them. I then lead them into a formal discussion of Rawls’s view, using the classroom exercise as the basis of my explanation of the abstract elements of Rawls.

Note

INSTRUCTIONS:

Your group is responsible for creating four or five distinct individuals with specific personalities. In other words, you need to determine certain essential features that tend to establish or define a person’s character. To do this, you must choose specific features that each of your individuals is to have. The categories you have to choose from are: sex, race, marital status and sexual preference, religion, education, social class, profession, political viewpoint, special talents, and other relevant considerations.

Within the group of individuals you collectively create, there are certain inclusions and limitations you must observe. You are encouraged to be creative in defining your people, but for each category please make sure you observe these restrictions:

SEX: Include at least 2 males and 2 females.
ETHNIC BACKGROUND: Everyone cannot be in the same racial/ethnic group. Include some diversity here.
MARITAL STATUS & SEXUAL PREFERENCE: choose from single/married/divorced/widowed and from straight/lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered.
RELIGION: Include a variety of religious views. (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.)
EDUCATION: At least one person should not have a high school diploma. No more than 3 college (Bachelor’s) degrees. No more than 1 advanced degree (e.g., Ph.D., J.D., D.D.S.)
SOCIAL/ECONOMIC CLASS: No more than 1 wealthy person. At least 1 poor person. (wealthy, upper middle, middle, lower middle, poor)
PROFESSION: At least 1 very poor paying job. No more than 1 very high paying job.
POLITICAL VIEW: use a variety of positions (far right, right, middle of the road, left, far left)
SPECIAL TALENTS: musical, athletic, intellectual, etc.
OPTIONAL: disease/accident? disability? personal triumph or tragedy?

SEX: Male Female
ETHNIC BACKGROUND:
MARITAL STATUS: Single Married Divorced Widowed
SEXUAL PREFERENCE: Straight Gay Bisexual
RELIGION:
EDUCATION:
SOCIAL CLASS:
PROFESSION:
POLITICAL VIEW:
SPECIAL TALENTS:
OTHER: