" Diverse groups learn to tolerate one another by developing " what Rawls calls ' overlapping consensus ': individuals and groups with diverse metaphysical views or ' comprehensive schemes ' will find reasons to agree about certain principles of justice that will include principles of toleration.

John Rawls ( 1921 – 2002 ) proposed a contractarian approach that has a decidedly Kantian flavour, in A Theory of Justice ( 1971 ), whereby rational people in a hypothetical " original position ", setting aside their individual preferences and capacities under a " veil of ignorance ", would agree to certain general principles of justice and legal organization.

To emphasise the general principle that justice should rise from the people and not be dictated by the law-making powers of governments, Rawls asserted that, " There is ... a general presumption against imposing legal and other restrictions on conduct without sufficient reason.

Rawls applied this technique to his conception of a hypothetical original position from which people would agree to a social contract.

Rawls seeks to use an argument that the principles of justice are what would be agreed upon if people were in the hypothetical situation of the original position and that those principles have moral weight as a result of that.

Rawls says that people, not states, form the basic unit that should be examined.

Rawls develops eight principles for how people should act on an international stage.

Further, Rawls claims that all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally.

As characterized by Anne Rawls, speaking for Garfinkel: " If one assumes, as Garfinkel does, that the meaningful, patterned, and orderly character of everyday life is something that people must work to achieve, then one must also assume that they have some methods for doing so ".

John Rawls ' Veil of Ignorance asks us to place ourselves in the position of the people our decisions may influence.

Parker and co-creator Matt Stone initially planned to have one of themselves voice the character, fearing that their ideal candidates of Hayes, Lou Rawls, and Barry White would never agree to voice the character because the duo had admittedly and purposefully created him as a " stereotype " to reflect what they felt was the perception most inhabitants of less-diverse mountainous Colorado towns had of black people.

Rawls argues from this ' original position ' that we would choose exactly the same political liberties for everyone, like freedom of speech, the right to vote and so on.

Rawls used a thought experiment, the original position, in which representative parties choose principles of justice for the basic structure of society from behind a veil of ignorance.

The original position is a hypothetical situation developed by American philosopher John Rawls as a thought experiment to replace the imagery of a savage state of nature of prior political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes.

Rawls specifies that the parties in the original position are concerned only with citizens ' share of what he calls primary social goods, which include basic rights as well as economic and social advantages.

Rawls also argues that the representatives in the original position would adopt the maximin rule as their principle for evaluating the choices before them.

Rawls argues that the representative parties in the original position would select two principles of justice:

Rawls offers a model of a fair choice situation ( the original position with its veil of ignorance ) within which parties would hypothetically choose mutually acceptable principles of justice.

Rawls claims that the parties in the original position would adopt two such principles, which would then govern the assignment of rights and duties and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages across society.

Rawls believes that this principle would be a rational choice for the representatives in the original position for the following reason: Each member of society has an equal claim on their society ’ s goods.

The assumptions of the original position, and in particular, the use of maximin reasoning, have also been criticized ( most notably by Kenneth Arrow and John Harsanyi ), with the implication either that Rawls designed the original position to derive the two principles, or that an original position more faithful to its initial purpose would not lead to his favored principles.

In reply Rawls has emphasized the role of the original position as a " device of representation " for making sense of the idea of a fair choice situation for free and equal citizens.

To develop his theory of Justice, Rawls places everyone in the original position.

The original position is a hypothetical state of nature used as a thought experiment to develop Rawls ' theory of justice.

In his work the Law of Peoples, Rawls applies a modified version of his original position thought experiment to international relationships.

A key component of Rawls ' argument is his claim that his Principles of Justice would be chosen by parties in the original position.

Noting that Rawls himself acknowledged the failure of his theory of justice to comprehensively address these three frontiers, Nussbaum claims that Rawls's attempt to expand his theory to address one of these areas — transnational justice — is " ultimately unsatisfying " because he fails to follow through with the essential elements developed in A Theory of Justice, namely, by relaxing some of the key assumptions about the parties to the original contract.

The veil of ignorance and the original position are concepts introduced by John Harsanyi and later appropriated by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice.

* John Rawls – political philosopher, author of A Theory of Justice, originator of the concepts of original position and veil of ignorance

Bad faith is important to the concept of original position in John Rawls ’ theory of justice, where mutual commitment of the parties requires that the parties cannot choose and agree to principles in bad faith, in that they have to be able, not just to live with and grudgingly accept, but to sincerely endorse the principles of justice ; a party cannot take risks with principles he knows he will have difficulty voluntarily complying with, or they would be making an agreement in bad faith which is ruled out by the conditions of the original position.

Moral constructivists like John Rawls and Christine Korsgaard may also be realists in this minimalist sense ; the latter describes her own position as procedural realism.

It is worth noting that for many contemporary political philosophers, the rigidity of a particular set of norms, rules, or fixed boundaries about either the way that subjects who would qualify for deliberation are constituted ( a position perhaps epitomized by John Rawls ) or regarding the kinds of argument which qualify as deliberation ( a position perhaps epitomized by Jürgen Habermas ) constitute a foreclosure of deliberation, making it impossible.

Specifically, Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an artificial device he calls the Original position in which everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance.

Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves.

Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare ( see below ) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others.

** The Contractarianism of John Rawls, which holds that the moral acts are those that we would all agree to if we were unbiased.

This song would be covered by Lou Rawls and Tavares before Atlantic Records re-released the Hall & Oates version in 1976.

Under such constraints, Rawls believes that parties would find his favoured principles of justice to be especially attractive, winning out over varied alternatives, including utilitarian and libertarian accounts.

In particular, Rawls claims that those in the Original Position would all adopt a maximin strategy which would maximise the prospects of the least well-off.

Philosopher Allan Bloom, a student of Leo Strauss, criticized Rawls for failing to account for the existence of natural right in his theory of justice, and wrote that Rawls absolutizes social union as the ultimate goal which would conventionalize everything into artifice.

Rawls justifies the Difference Principle on the basis that, since Fair Equality of Opportunity has lexical priority, the Just choice from Pareto optimal scenarios which could occur would be that benefiting the worst-off rather than the best-off.

Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust.