Veil of Ignorance

1. Introduction

The veil of ignorance is a central device in late 20th‑century political philosophy, proposed by John Rawls as part of his contractarian account of justice. It functions as a thought experiment: individuals are asked to imagine choosing the basic principles that structure their society while deprived of knowledge of their own particular position within it. Rawls maintains that this informational constraint models impartiality and fairness, and that principles chosen under such conditions have a distinctive claim to legitimacy.

The veil operates within a broader hypothetical situation that Rawls calls the original position, in which free and equal rational agents select principles of justice to regulate the basic structure of society—its major political, economic, and social institutions. The veil removes knowledge of one’s race, class, sex, natural talents, religious or moral doctrine, and social status, while leaving general knowledge of social science and human psychology intact. This, proponents argue, prevents people from tailoring principles to their own advantage and forces them to consider the standpoint of any member of society.

Rawls uses this device to argue that such agents would endorse a set of liberal egalitarian principles, including strong protection of basic liberties and constraints on economic inequality. Subsequent philosophers have treated the veil of ignorance as a versatile model of impartial justification, adapting and critiquing it in debates over distributive justice, constitutional design, global inequality, and public reasoning in pluralist societies.

Although widely influential, the veil of ignorance remains contested. Supporters regard it as a powerful way to capture fairness and reciprocity; critics question its assumptions about rationality, risk, individuality, and the proper scope of justice. The sections that follow examine its origins, structure, assumptions, rivals, and the range of critiques and adaptations it has inspired.

2. Origin and Attribution

The veil of ignorance is primarily attributed to John Rawls, who introduced the idea in mid‑20th‑century analytic philosophy. It appears in embryonic form in his article “Justice as Fairness” (1958) and receives systematic treatment in A Theory of Justice (1971).

Rawls’s Formulation

Rawls presents the veil of ignorance as part of a revived social contract framework. Instead of imagining a historical contract, he proposes a hypothetical, rational choice situation—the original position—in which a veil of ignorance guarantees impartiality. Rawls insists this device is not a psychological prediction but a “device of representation”: it represents the constraints that, in his view, are implicit in thinking of persons as free and equal citizens.

"

“The veil of ignorance is so defined that everyone is similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition.”

— John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)

Intellectual Ownership and Extensions

While Rawls is the acknowledged originator of the explicit “veil of ignorance” formulation, subsequent thinkers have developed related devices:

A number of critics—such as Robert Nozick, Michael Sandel, and Susan Moller Okin—treat the veil as emblematic of Rawlsian liberalism, even while rejecting its presuppositions. Others, including Brian Barry and Thomas Pogge, employ Rawls’s framework but modify its scope or metric.

Although some historians note affinities with earlier thinkers (Hume’s impartial spectator, Kant’s universalization test, and social contract theorists), the specific terminology and detailed structure of the veil of ignorance are consistently credited to Rawls’s work between the late 1950s and early 1970s.

3. Historical Context and Intellectual Background

The veil of ignorance emerged in a specific mid‑20th‑century intellectual and political setting, shaped by debates about welfare states, civil rights, and the foundations of liberal democracy in the aftermath of World War II.

Postwar Political and Philosophical Climate

Rawls developed his theory against:

• The dominance of classical utilitarianism in Anglophone moral and political philosophy.
• Skepticism about normative theory associated with logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy.
• Real‑world concerns about economic inequality, racial segregation, and Cold War ideological conflict.

In this context, Rawls sought a rigorous, non‑utilitarian foundation for liberal democracy that could justify a welfare‑state‑type regime without appealing to controversial moral or religious doctrines.

Social Contract Tradition

The veil of ignorance explicitly draws on the social contract tradition:

Rawls reinterprets these contractarian ideas using contemporary analytic tools, notably decision theory and social choice theory.

Influences in Economics and Social Science

Rawls’s design of the original position and veil also reflects developments in:

• Welfare economics (e.g., Pareto efficiency, social welfare functions).
• Game theory and rational choice models.
• Early critiques of interpersonal utility comparisons.

Rawls’s Princeton contemporary John C. Harsanyi independently used impartial ex ante choice models to defend utilitarianism. Many commentators view Rawls and Harsanyi as offering competing formalizations of the same impartiality ideal.

Liberal and Egalitarian Currents

The device also resonates with mid‑century egalitarian and human rights movements. Philosophers such as Isaiah Berlin and H. L. A. Hart were elaborating notions of liberty and rights. Rawls’s veil of ignorance can be seen as an attempt to integrate:

• Liberal commitments to basic liberties, and
• Egalitarian concerns about fair life chances,

into a single, systematically justified framework that responds both to utilitarian orthodoxy and to laissez‑faire defenses of market outcomes.

4. The Original Position and the Veil of Ignorance

The original position is the hypothetical choice situation in which the veil of ignorance is applied. It is designed to model fair agreement on principles of justice for the basic structure of society.

Parties in the Original Position

Rawls characterizes the parties as:

• Free and equal: Each represents a citizen with the same basic moral status.
• Rational: They are capable of means–end reasoning and long‑term planning.
• Mutually disinterested: They seek to advance their own share of primary goods, not out of altruism or envy.

These assumptions are intended to capture a generalized standpoint of citizens, not their full psychology.

The Veil of Ignorance: Informational Constraints

The veil specifies what parties do not know:

• Their social position (class, race, sex, ethnicity, family background).
• Their natural endowments (talents, intelligence, health).
• Their conception of the good (religious, moral, or philosophical doctrines).
• Their particular psychological traits (risk attitudes, ambition).
• The generation to which they belong.

They do, however, know general facts about:

• Human psychology and motivation.
• Economics, social theory, and political institutions.
• Basic needs and the possibility of scarcity and conflict.

This combination is meant to make the choice situation impartial yet realistic.

Function of the Original Position

The original position serves several roles:

1. Model of justification: It represents the conditions under which free and equal citizens could reasonably accept principles as fair.
2. Filter on reasons: Arguments that depend on particular advantages (e.g., being rich, belonging to a majority religion) are excluded.
3. Selection mechanism: It is the forum in which candidate principles (e.g., utilitarian, libertarian, Rawlsian) are compared under impartial constraints.

Proponents claim that, within this setting, parties would converge on principles that secure robust basic liberties and protect the least advantaged, since each must consider the possibility of occupying any position in the resulting society. Critics contend that different specifications of the parties’ knowledge and motivations may yield different principles, challenging the determinacy and neutrality of the device.

5. Rawls’s Two Principles of Justice

Within the original position, Rawls argues that parties would select two specific principles of justice to regulate the basic structure of society. These principles are lexically ordered: the first has priority over the second.

The First Principle: Equal Basic Liberties

Rawls’s first principle states that:

"

“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.”

— John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)

Basic liberties include, among others:

• Freedom of conscience, speech, and association.
• Political liberties (e.g., the right to vote and run for office).
• Freedom of the person and the rule of law.
• Rights of property in the person and protection from arbitrary arrest.

The first principle is given lexical priority: societies may not trade off these liberties for gains in economic or social advantages.

The Second Principle: Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle

The second principle has two parts:

1. Fair Equality of Opportunity (FEO)
   Positions and offices should be open to all under conditions ensuring that people with similar talents and motivation have comparable chances, regardless of their social background. This goes beyond mere formal equality (no legal barriers) to require institutions that mitigate the effects of class and other arbitrary factors.

2. The Difference Principle
   Social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they are:

   • Attached to offices and positions open to all under FEO, and
   • Arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Rawls thus accepts some inequality as potentially just, provided it improves the position of those worst off compared with alternative arrangements.

Lexical Structure

The ordering among the principles can be summarized:

Rawls contends that, behind the veil of ignorance, rational parties would endorse this structure to secure their fundamental freedoms and guard against ending up in severely disadvantaged positions, given their ignorance of their eventual place in society.

6. Logical Structure of the Veil of Ignorance Argument

The veil of ignorance argument has a distinctive logical structure: it moves from a conception of fairness to a specific choice situation and then to preferred principles. Commentators often treat it as an intuition pump rather than a formal proof, but its steps can be reconstructed systematically.

Core Inference Pattern

A simplified reconstruction is:

1. Fairness Criterion: Principles of justice are fair if they would be chosen in an appropriately impartial and symmetric choice situation among free and equal persons.
2. Modeling Fairness: The original position, with its veil of ignorance, is proposed as such a situation.
3. Rational Choice under Uncertainty: Given the parties’ rationality and ignorance of their future position, they consider different sets of candidate principles.
4. Comparative Evaluation: They compare, for example, utilitarian, libertarian, and Rawlsian principles in terms of how they affect the distribution of primary goods across possible positions.
5. Selection: Rawls claims that, under plausible decision rules and assumptions, the parties would choose his two principles of justice.
6. Justification: Because these principles would be selected in the fair choice situation, they are justified as principles of justice for the basic structure of society.

Structure as an Argument from Representation

Rawls later emphasizes that the original position is a representational device: it encodes conditions that he argues are implicit in democratic citizenship—equal moral status, separation from arbitrary contingencies, and reciprocity. On this reading, the logical structure is:

• Identify normative constraints on acceptable justifications (e.g., no reliance on one’s social privilege).
• Build a hypothetical choice situation that incorporates those constraints.
• Ask which principles would be the outcome of such a situation.
• Treat those principles as expressing the moral point of view embedded in the constraints.

Points of Disagreement

Debates focus on various logical junctures:

• Whether impartiality is correctly modeled by the veil of ignorance.
• Whether alternative devices (e.g., reasonable rejection in Scanlon) capture the same idea more faithfully.
• Whether the move from “would be chosen” to “is justified” presupposes controversial metaethical or democratic assumptions.

Thus, the argument’s plausibility depends both on accepting its fairness criterion and on accepting Rawls’s claim that his particular formulation of the original position adequately instantiates that criterion.

7. Key Assumptions and Variables

The outcome of the veil of ignorance argument is sensitive to several assumptions and variables that specify the original position. Different philosophers emphasize or challenge different subsets of these.

Informational Assumptions

The content and thickness of the veil is central:

• Excluded information: personal identity, social status, natural talents, conception of the good, generation, and sometimes nationality.
• Included information: general facts about economics, psychology, and social life; basic needs; possibilities of cooperation and conflict.

Some critics contend that expanding or contracting the veil (e.g., including knowledge of one’s risk preferences) would alter the outcome.

Motivational and Rationality Assumptions

Rawls assumes:

• Mutual disinterest: Parties do not care directly about others’ welfare, though they may support institutions that indirectly benefit all.
• Rationality: They are instrumentally rational and capable of deliberation over a lifetime plan.
• Sense of justice: They are assumed to want to conform to principles they would choose.

Debates concern whether these assumptions are too thin (ignoring altruism, solidarity) or too idealized (overstating rationality and compliance).

Metric of Advantage: Primary Goods

Parties are assumed to care about securing an adequate share of primary goods—rights, liberties, opportunities, income, wealth, and the social bases of self‑respect. This provides a common currency for evaluating principles.

Critics such as Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum argue that alternative metrics (e.g., capabilities) might be more appropriate, potentially changing what the parties would choose.

Decision Rule and Risk Attitude

How parties reason under uncertainty is crucial:

• Rawls suggests a form of maximin (see Section 8).
• Others model parties as expected‑utility maximizers.

This choice significantly affects whether parties endorse the difference principle or more utilitarian principles.

Definition of the Least Advantaged

The index of the least advantaged—who counts as worst off and by what measure—is another key variable. Rawls offers several characterizations, typically focusing on those with the lowest share of primary goods, but commentators disagree on the precise formulation and its implications.

Scope and Domain

Finally, the scope of application—domestic society vs. global order, present generation vs. future generations—affects which principles emerge. Extensions of the veil to nationality or time (intergenerational justice) often yield more demanding egalitarian or environmental principles than Rawls originally defended.

8. Decision Theory and the Maximin Rule

A central feature of Rawls’s use of the veil of ignorance is his appeal to a particular way of reasoning under uncertainty: a form of the maximin rule. This has been a focal point of both support and criticism.

Maximin in the Original Position

The maximin rule instructs choosers to maximize the minimum payoff—i.e., to select the option whose worst possible outcome is better than the worst outcomes of alternatives. Behind the veil, each party must contemplate that they could occupy any social position produced by a set of principles. Rawls argues that, given:

• The seriousness of potential deprivation,
• The impossibility of assigning precise probabilities to social positions,
• And the irreversibility of basic structural choices,

it is rational to give priority to the security of the worst‑off position.

On this basis, he contends that parties would select the difference principle, which improves the situation of the least advantaged, over principles that allow greater inequality even if they raise average welfare.

Rawls’s Conditions for Maximin

Rawls does not endorse maximin as a general decision rule for all choices. He suggests it is appropriate when:

1. The minimum position under some options is intolerably bad.
2. The alternatives that improve this minimum do not involve significant sacrifices in other respects.
3. Probabilities are unknown or unreliable.

Proponents maintain that basic constitutional and distributive principles meet these conditions.

Expected Utility and Utilitarian Interpretations

Critics such as John C. Harsanyi argue that rational agents would instead maximize expected utility, effectively treating themselves as having an equal chance of being any person in society. Under that assumption, they maintain, the veil of ignorance supports some form of utilitarianism, not the difference principle.

This disagreement can be summarized:

Some commentators propose intermediate or mixed rules (e.g., risk‑weighted prioritarianism), arguing that a range of reasonable attitudes toward risk still supports robust, though not necessarily strictly Rawlsian, egalitarian safeguards.

9. Comparisons with Utilitarian and Libertarian Theories

The veil of ignorance is often contrasted with utilitarian and libertarian approaches to justice, which offer alternative criteria for evaluating social arrangements.

Comparison with Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism holds that the right principles maximize aggregate or average utility (happiness, preference satisfaction, or well‑being).

• Rawls’s contrast: Rawls argues that utilitarianism allows severe sacrifices of some for greater aggregate welfare, because it aggregates benefits across persons. He proposes the veil to ensure that no one would endorse principles that could leave them among a severely oppressed minority.
• Harsanyi’s challenge: Harsanyi claims that if parties behind the veil are expected‑utility maximizers with equal probabilities of occupying each position, they would choose to maximize average utility, thereby vindicating utilitarianism rather than Rawlsian egalitarianism.

Comparison can be schematized:

Comparison with Libertarianism

Libertarian theories, such as Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory, define justice in terms of historical entitlements: just acquisition and voluntary transfer of holdings.

• Rawls’s contrast: Rawls evaluates basic structures by their distributive effects on the least advantaged and their compliance with fair opportunity and liberty principles, rather than by the historical paths of property transfers.
• Libertarian critique: Libertarians argue that the veil of ignorance ignores the moral importance of self‑ownership and voluntary market transactions. They maintain that hypothetical consent in an artificial situation cannot override actual entitlements.

Key points of divergence:

Alternative readings of the veil attempt to reconcile elements of these perspectives, for instance by using it to justify basic libertarian rights or moderate welfarist principles, but there is no consensus on such syntheses.

10. Feminist and Communitarian Critiques

Feminist and communitarian philosophers have raised influential objections to the veil of ignorance, questioning its underlying picture of the person and its abstraction from social relationships.

Feminist Critiques

Feminist theorists such as Susan Moller Okin, Carole Pateman, and Iris Marion Young argue that the veil of ignorance:

• Treats individuals as gender‑neutral, thereby obscuring structural gender inequalities, unpaid care work, and power imbalances within the family.
• Abstracts from care relationships and dependency (e.g., childrearing, eldercare), marginalizing activities disproportionately borne by women.
• Risks reproducing injustices by structuring the original position around a public–private split, focusing on the “basic structure” while leaving family and intimate spheres relatively under‑theorized.

Okin contends that if the veil explicitly considered the possibility of being a caregiver in a patriarchal household, parties might demand more extensive restructuring of family law and workplace institutions than Rawls envisages.

Communitarian Critiques

Communitarian critics, including Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Charles Taylor, target the conception of the self behind the veil:

• They argue that Rawls’s agents are depicted as “unencumbered selves”, detached from constitutive attachments, traditions, and communal identities.
• They contend that moral reasoning is inseparable from particular communities and histories, and that stripping away these contexts yields a distorted view of practical reasoning.
• They worry that the veil’s abstraction fails to register shared goods and thick conceptions of the good life that many communities regard as central.

Sandel, for instance, suggests that by bracketing citizens’ comprehensive doctrines, the veil cannot adequately account for the role of substantive moral commitments in shaping political obligations.

Responses and Ongoing Debate

Defenders of Rawls respond that the veil models citizens as political, not metaphysical, selves, and that it is meant to capture a shared public standpoint rather than deny the importance of relationships and communities. Some feminist and communitarian thinkers propose modified devices that retain impartiality while giving greater weight to care, dependency, and social embeddedness, but there is disagreement about whether such modifications remain genuinely Rawlsian or constitute a break with the veil framework.

11. Global Justice and the Scope of the Veil

A major line of critique focuses on the scope of the veil of ignorance: to whom does it apply, and over which institutions? Rawls primarily applies the veil to a closed national society, but many theorists question this limitation.

Rawls’s Domestic Focus

In A Theory of Justice, the original position is populated by representatives of citizens within a single society, choosing principles for that society’s basic structure. In his later work The Law of Peoples, Rawls introduces a second original position, in which “peoples” (not individuals) choose principles regulating international relations. He there defends relatively modest duties of assistance rather than strong global egalitarian redistribution.

Cosmopolitan Extensions

Cosmopolitan theorists, such as Charles Beitz, Thomas Pogge, and Brian Barry, argue that the impartial logic of the veil naturally extends beyond state borders:

• If parties are ignorant of their nationality, they might reject principles permitting extreme global inequality.
• Given the deep global interdependence of markets and institutions, they contend that the basic structure is partly global rather than purely domestic.

On this view, the veil would yield principles of global distributive justice—for example, global difference principles or robust duties of resource sharing and institutional reform.

Statist and Association‑Based Responses

Other theorists defend Rawls’s more limited scope:

• Statists argue that principles of distributive justice apply primarily within coercive political structures such as states, which impose shared laws and social cooperation. On this view, the special obligations among compatriots justify a domestically focused veil.
• Association‑based accounts emphasize shared institutions or democratic self‑governance as the trigger for egalitarian duties, suggesting that merely causal global connections are insufficient for full‑blown distributive principles.

Intergenerational and Environmental Scope

Some philosophers extend the veil in temporal terms, bracketing knowledge of which generation one belongs to. This yields arguments for:

• Stronger intergenerational justice constraints.
• More stringent environmental and climate responsibilities, given the possibility of being in a vulnerable future generation.

There remains no consensus on the appropriate scope of the veil, but debates over domestic versus global (and present versus intergenerational) application have become central to contemporary discussions of global justice.

12. Applications in Law, Policy, and Ethics

Beyond its role in abstract theory, the veil of ignorance has been used as a heuristic and justificatory tool in legal reasoning, public policy design, and various areas of applied ethics.

Constitutional and Legal Theory

Legal theorists employ veil‑of‑ignorance reasoning to evaluate:

• Constitutional rights: Asking what rights individuals would insist on without knowing their social status, race, or religious affiliation.
• Procedural fairness: Assessing rules of due process, jury selection, and burdens of proof by imagining parties ignorant of whether they will be accused, victim, or judge.
• Anti‑discrimination law: Justifying protections by considering whether one would accept existing patterns of privilege and disadvantage from behind a veil.

Some courts and legal scholars explicitly invoke Rawlsian language; others use similar impartiality arguments without formal reference.

Social Policy and Welfare Design

Policymakers and economists have adapted the veil in:

• Tax and transfer policy: Evaluating progressive taxation, social insurance, and basic income by asking what schemes individuals would endorse if unaware of their income, health, or employment prospects.
• Healthcare allocation: Considering fair access to care under uncertainty about one’s health status or ability to pay.
• Education reform: Designing school funding and admissions policies by modeling choices made without knowledge of one’s family background or talents.

Empirical experiments in behavioral economics and psychology sometimes present veil‑like scenarios to study fairness preferences, with mixed but often moderately egalitarian outcomes.

Professional and Applied Ethics

In applied ethics, veil‑based reasoning appears in:

• Bioethics: Debating triage protocols and organ allocation under uncertainty about one’s own role as patient or donor.
• Business ethics: Evaluating corporate governance and workplace policies from the standpoint of not knowing whether one will be executive, shareholder, or low‑wage worker.
• Environmental ethics: Considering climate policies assuming ignorance about one’s geographic location or generational cohort.

Critics caution that these applications risk oversimplification, but proponents view them as practical approximations of impartial judgment that can supplement existing democratic deliberation and stakeholder consultation.

13. Revisions in Political Liberalism

In Political Liberalism (1993) and later works, Rawls revises the interpretation of the veil of ignorance and the original position to address concerns about pluralism and the status of his theory among competing comprehensive doctrines.

From Comprehensive to Political Liberalism

In A Theory of Justice, Rawls’s view is often read as a comprehensive moral doctrine. Later, he reframes justice as fairness as a “political, not metaphysical” conception, designed for societies marked by reasonable pluralism—permanent disagreement about religious and philosophical worldviews.

Under this reinterpretation:

• The original position and veil become a device of representation of public reason, not a literal bargaining model.
• The parties represent citizens solely in their capacity as free and equal members of a democratic society, abstracting from their deeper moral or religious commitments.

Public Reason and Overlapping Consensus

Rawls links the veil to the idea of public reason:

• Acceptable political principles must be justifiable using reasons that citizens with diverse comprehensive doctrines could reasonably accept.
• The veil represents the standpoint of citizens who set aside sectarian commitments when reasoning about the constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice.

The goal is an overlapping consensus: different moral and religious views converging on the same political principles for distinct reasons.

Modifications to Assumptions

Political Liberalism softens or recasts some original assumptions:

• The parties’ motivations are framed less in terms of maximizing primary goods and more in terms of seeking fair terms of cooperation over time.
• The justification of the two principles relies less on a controversial decision rule (e.g., maximin) and more on their role in expressing reciprocity among free and equal citizens.

Critics debate whether these revisions fundamentally alter the normative force of the veil of ignorance. Some argue that the later view reduces its reliance on decision theory, while others suggest it retains the same basic structure with a clarified political interpretation.

14. Alternative Contractualist and Impartiality Devices

The veil of ignorance is one among several devices designed to capture impartial justification of moral and political principles. Alternative frameworks often draw on similar intuitions while differing in structure and implications.

Scanlonian Contractualism

T. M. Scanlon’s contractualism, developed in What We Owe to Each Other (1998), dispenses with a literal veil and original position. Instead, it proposes that:

• An act is wrong if it would be disallowed by principles that no one could reasonably reject, given a desire for mutual justification.
• Reasonableness is assessed by comparing individuals’ complaints against candidate principles.

While sharing Rawls’s focus on justification to each person, Scanlon emphasizes actual interpersonal reasoning over hypothetical choice under uncertainty.

Deliberative Democratic Models

Deliberative democrats, such as Jürgen Habermas and Joshua Cohen, develop impartiality through public deliberation rather than hypothetical contracts:

• Legitimate norms arise from procedures in which all affected can participate as equals.
• The focus is on communicative rationality and fair processes rather than on pre‑political choice situations.

These approaches sometimes see the veil as a heuristic for identifying which reasons could survive open, inclusive discourse.

Impartial Spectator and Universalization Tests

Earlier impartiality devices include:

• Adam Smith’s impartial spectator: Imagining an informed, disinterested observer to correct partial judgments.
• Kant’s universalization test: Asking whether maxims could be willed as universal laws by rational agents.

Rawls’s veil shares the goal of impartiality but employs a different structure: a multi‑person agreement under conditions of symmetry, rather than a single observer or individual test of maxims.

Capabilities and Priority Views

Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum use capability‑based approaches that sometimes invoke hypothetical agreement or public reasoning without a strict veil. Others, like Derek Parfit, explore prioritarianism and moral aggregation with various impartial standpoints.

These alternatives raise questions about:

• Whether impartiality requires ignorance of one’s identity, or instead empathic identification with others.
• Whether hypothetical consent is necessary, or whether actual democratic procedures suffice for legitimacy.

No single device has supplanted the veil of ignorance, but the landscape of contractualist and impartiality models illustrates multiple ways of formalizing similar moral concerns.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

The veil of ignorance has become a standard tool in contemporary political philosophy, with a legacy that extends well beyond Rawls’s original project.

Impact on Political Philosophy

The device helped inaugurate a revival of normative political theory in the late 20th century. It:

• Re‑centered justice and fairness as core topics in analytic philosophy.
• Stimulated extensive debates about distributive justice, equality, and the moral significance of social institutions.
• Provided a reference point for subsequent theories—egalitarian, libertarian, utilitarian, feminist, communitarian, and cosmopolitan.

Many introductory courses and texts present the veil as a canonical approach to thinking about justice.

Influence Across Disciplines

Beyond philosophy, the veil has influenced:

• Law and constitutional theory, shaping discussions of rights and fair procedures.
• Economics and welfare analysis, inspiring thought experiments and empirical studies about fairness preferences.
• Public policy, where it serves as a heuristic for impartial design of social insurance, taxation, and regulation.

It has also featured in popular culture, journalism, and civic education as a way of illustrating the idea of putting oneself in anyone’s position.

Continuing Debates and Transformations

Over time, the veil has:

• Been reinterpreted within political liberalism as a device of representation.
• Been extended, modified, or rejected in debates over global justice, gender and family, disability, and environmental ethics.
• Inspired numerous alternative devices of impartial justification.

Its historical significance lies less in universal acceptance of Rawls’s conclusions than in the enduring framework it offers for asking: What principles could we reasonably accept if we did not know who in society we would be? The ongoing disputes about its assumptions, scope, and consequences continue to shape discussions of justice, legitimacy, and democratic justification in the 21st century.