Simionas Blog Post 1

 In this Theory of Justice, John Rawls veil of ignorance seemed aligned with the suggestions Harris presented about how to go about the policy change she suggested we need. Harris pointed out that we need to include more voices than just those at the top, we need the people who policy affects, the people society has pushed to the bottom to have a voice in policy or we will never see meaningful change. In this sense, behind the veil of ignorance where everyone is unaware of their social standings or physical or mental capacities, wouldn’t all rational men be thinking and making policy with the intention of protecting against their worst case scenario, and therefore essentially be making policy with the interest of those at the bottom in mind? It raises the question if those who disagree with policy like affirmative action would disagree with it if they did not know their own position in society, and puts many oppressive laws made in the past in perspective, if people would have really come to oppressive conclusions.

In comparison to a different reading we have looked at, I wonder if Marx would see Rawls as presenting adequate solutions to some of his problems, or what Marx’s response to Rawls would be. For instance, Rawls is able to organize society before ideologies are implemented, just as Marx stated we must get rid of ideologies unless we can see them arise in a free society where they have no attachment to power and are practiced privately, by saying that not only should they not be considered but the parties “should presume that even their spiritual aims may be opposed” to find overlapping and widely accepted stipulations (12). Additionally, Marx repeatedly raises the issue of our self interest and communal interests clashing and being pulled away from each other. While Marx suggests the two being fully united through communism, it seems that Rawls with the veil of ignorance has found a way to make pursuing one's self interest, by wanting to secure equal benefits and distribution that favors the worst off, lead to fairness. What would Marx’s response be to Rawls? Would he see his premise as successful or still a shortcoming that would eventually unravel until it fell into place with the history leading to a communist revolution?