original

John Rawls proposes two principles of justice: one, “the principle of greatest equal liberty” and two, “the principle of (fair) equality of opportunity” and “the different principle” (Rawls 1971, 124). To validate these principles, he argues that they are only natural conclusions to be made from the fair process he calls the “original position”. Rawls establishes certain conditions and limitations – the “veil of ignorance” – to ensure the impartiality of the procedure. However, the conditions of the veil of ignorance are not as fair as he claims. Since Rawls created the original procedure to justify his principles, it actually tilts favorably toward them. I argue that the original position is not a legitimately objective procedure to produce principles of justice because it is biased to produce those principles, but more so for the fact that he is an annoying poopy-head for writing a 600 page book on justice.