John Rawls' Veil of ignorance

In a well ordered society, two conditions hold: 

	l everyone accepts and knows others accept same principles of justice
	2 basic social institutions satisfy those principles.


Let us choose principles without knowing anything about
	our talents
	income
	social position

Or our race, sex, religion

What rational people choose under these circumstances? 
Position of equality under veil equivalent to state of nature
 
We do not know whether we will be rich or poor, nor what sorts of talents we
shall have
	we choose principles that we would accept in that situation
We do not know outcome


We are rational egoists
That is, we do not take interests in others' interests- our first priority is not
doing good. 

There are two first principles.
		A. Equality
		B. Inequality with all benefit
 

Equality is a very obvious principle. We need to explain some deviation from
equality
	racism, sexism are wrong because do not take individuals equally
They fail to take some individuals seriously

But some deviations from equality are justified
What kind? 
Not my good at your expense

But inequalities which benefit everyone
	Perhaps: what I earn through my talents, as opposed to what I inherit

Departure from equality requires justification.

An example. 
	If an inventor makes more, everyone will benefit from her invention

So, even if I do now know if I will be the inventor, I would choose that the
inventor benefits
	I would allow lots of benefit to inventor, so long as my position is in the
end better
I would be rational. Not unduly envious
I accept inequality not to pay inventor but because I myself benefit

Rawls thinks it is rational to accept such inequalities
	They might benefit me For I might be the person with this skill benefiting
all
	if I am not the person with the skill, still I benefit

I thus benefit in any case
	whoever I am when veil of ignorance removed