The veil of ignorance, the theory and the fair
06
Nov
John Rawls asked if it is possible to reach a common understanding 
of what is right. His justice is that based on consideration of all be equal and free, market capitalism tipoco and comes to be social.
Rawls proposed that there is a veil of ignorance over which should be examined relations between the desired society, the Royal Society and the utopia of fair justice.
Rawls explains the veil of ignorance, “Do not know how the various alternatives will affect your particular case and are required to evaluate the principles as only the basis of the general considerations.” (Rawls, 1981, p. 119)
On his three theoretical position did reviews: Jean-Pierre Dupuy, Michael SandeL and Robert Nozick, the first quips the author stating “Rawls is well aware that, most times, is on behalf of the wretched of the Earth that suppress the freedoms and establishes the privileges “(Dupuy, 199, p. 129), which the author mean by this is that” justice too is less justice “(Dupuy, 199, p. 131).
But the veil of ignorance is also valid for Dupuy using the work of Alexis de Tocqueville (From Democracy in America II, XIII): “They destroyed the annoying privileges of some similar, they found the competition all … that’s why the desire equality becomes ever more insatiable as equality is greater. “
Communitarian philosophers like Michael Sanderl and other (Charles Taylor, Michel Walzer, etc.) weave several critical considerations about the theory of Rawls’ fairness with his liberalism’s universal claim, because it says that this presents an abstract conception of the person, noting that we want the collective rights are prevalent on the individual.
Sandel believes that the thought of Rawls fair is earlier and priority over the good, so that justice would be the first virtue, no moral or political value to overlap.
The veil of ignorance presupposes that the parties away all differences and disagreements would be overcome and there would be no plurality.
But Sandel also be willing to move in this direction since for him there would be a priority of conflict and hierarchy of liberty, equality and fraternity, for he considered fundamental values, so there would be a “veil of ignorance”.
Finally Nozick is an advocate of radical liberalism, or liberarianismo, building a minimal state, the most viable for him, with limited functions for the protection of individual rights, property and safety of citizens.
Nozick wrote “The duty not to interfere in other people’s choice of domain is all that any society should (coercively) demand; higher levels of ethics, involving positive benevolence “(Nozick 2011, p. 280), but reveals and even writes that this would represent a” personal ideal “that would be the choice of each, so there is also a veil of ignorance way of building this ideal personnel.
Heidegger wrote about the “unveiling”, a way in which you need some social or personal construction according to which we draw the veil of our ignorance and walked to a fairer society without this process those who vociferously against “theories” are ignorant and fanaticism and contributes little or nothing to the necessary transformations.
Pages in portuguese (or Spanish) editions.
DUPUY, Jean-Pierre. Éthique et philosophie de l’action, France: Ellipses, 1999.
HEIDEGGER, Martin. Country path conversations. USA: Indiana University Press, 2010.
NOZICK, Robert. Anarchy, State, Utopia. UK: Cambridge Press, 2011.
RAWLS, John. A Theory of Justice. USA, 1971.
SANDEL, M. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge, UK New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998
