There are three other arguments advanced by Rawls to support justice as equity (all in TJ, section 29). Each of them depends on the concept of a “well-ordered society”. The ideal of a well-ordered society is Rawls` development of the doctrine of the social contract. It is a society in which (1) everyone readily accepts and affirms the same principles of justice; (2) these principles are successfully applied in basic social institutions, including laws and conventions, and are generally observed by citizens; and (3) reasonable people are morally motivated to submit to their sense of justice – they want to do what justice requires of them (TJ 4-5, §69). Rawls says at various points that a well-ordered society is a “perfectly just society.” (TJ 9) The parties in the initial position choose principles to govern a perfectly just and orderly society in which all agree, adhere to and respect their principles of justice. So there are two sides to Rawls` social contract. The parties in the initial position have the task of agreeing on principles that all can rationally accept in the circumstances of the original position. But their rational choice is determined in part by the principles which free and equal legal persons in a well-ordered society can reasonably accept and accept as basic principles of their social and political relations. Patriarchal control of women is found in at least three paradigmatic contemporary contracts: the marriage contract, the prostitution contract, and the surrogacy contract. Each of these treaties deals with the control of women by men or the control of a particular man over a particular woman in general. Under the terms of the marriage contract, a husband is granted the right of sexual access in most states in the United States, which prohibits the legal category of marital rape. Prostitution is a typical example of Pateman`s claim that modern patriarchy requires equal access from men to women, especially sexual access, access to their bodies. And surrogacy can be understood as more of the same, albeit in terms of access to women`s reproductive abilities.
All these examples show that the contract is the means by which women are dominated and controlled. The Treaty is not the path to freedom and equality. Rather, it is a means, perhaps the most fundamental, by which patriarchy is maintained. The original position plays a decisive role in Kantian constructivism. Rawls says that the original position is a “method of construction” that establishes an objective point of view from which objective principles of justice can be derived. The principles of justice are “constructed” on the basis of the ideal ideas of man and society (“ideas of reason” in Kant`s sense). In Kantian constructivism (CP chap.16), Rawls transforms the Kantian interpretation idea of “our nature as free and equal rational beings” into an ideal “conception of the person” that is considered a “free and equal moral person” with the two moral forces of practical thought. It is this idea of the person, associated with the ideal of social cooperation, represented by a well-ordered society “modeled” or “reflected” by the original position. In “Kantian Constructivism,” lecture II, Rawls explains how each of the relevant characteristics of the original position (including the veil of ignorance and the description of the parts as “rational agents of construction”) “represents” in some way the ideal conception of person and society that underlies Kantian constructivism.
Since the original position presumably represents all relevant ideas and principles of practical reason, Rawls asserts that all the principles chosen from it are objectively correct, as a matter of “pure procedural justice at the highest level” of practical reasoning. (See below for the role of the original position in reflective balance.) The state of nature is therefore not the same as the state of war, as is the case according to Hobbes. However, it can enter a state of war, especially a state of war due to property disputes. While the state of nature is the state of freedom in which individuals recognize natural law and therefore do not harm each other, the state of war between two or more people begins as soon as one man declares war on another by stealing him or trying to make him his slave. Since in the state of nature there is no civil power to which people can appeal, and since natural law allows them to defend their own lives, then they can kill those who would use violence against them. Since the state of nature lacks civil authority, once the war begins, it is likely that it will continue. And this is one of the strongest reasons why people have to abandon the state of nature by uniting to form a civilian government. Rawls argues that the parties will see that his two principles align with the well-being of every citizen. By virtue of these two principles, the fundamental institutions of society affirm the freedom and equality of every citizen and provide a public basis for the self-respect of every citizen. This public foundation of self-respect is crucial for citizens to pursue their life projects with energy and confidence. Citizens will also see that fundamental freedoms leave them enough social space to pursue their rational notions of goodness. Whether rich or poor, citizens will tend not to be envious or authoritarian, as they will see how the economy works for the mutual benefit of all.
And citizens can be satisfied when they think about the common good they can achieve together by working to maintain just institutions over time. Property played an essential role in Locke`s argument for civil government and the treaty that established it. According to Locke, private property occurs when a person mixes his labor with the raw materials of nature. For example, if you cultivate a parcel of land in nature and turn it into a parcel of agricultural land that produces food, then you have a claim to own that parcel of land and the food produced in it. (This led Locke to conclude that America didn`t really belong to the Native Americans who lived there because, according to him, they didn`t use nature`s basic material. In other words, they did not cultivate it, so they had no legitimate rights to it, and others could therefore legitimately appropriate it.) Given the implications of natural law, there are limits to the amount of goods one can own: one must not take more nature than one can use, leaving others not to have enough for themselves. Because the nature of all mankind is given by God for their common sustenance, one cannot take more than one`s own righteous share. Property is the keystone of Locke`s argument for the social contract and civil government, for it is the protection of their property, including their property in their own bodies, that people seek when they decide to abandon the state of nature. Another reason given by Rawls for such a “thick” veil of ignorance is that it is conceived as a strict “position of equality” (TJ 12/11) that represents people purely as free and equal legal persons. The parties in the initial situation do not know any particular facts about themselves or the company; They all have the same general information provided to them. They are then very strongly equal, “symmetrical” (JF 18) and erected purely as free and equal legal persons.
They know only the qualities and interests they have in common as free and equal legal persons – their “higher interests” in the development of the moral forces of justice and rationality, their need for primary social goods, etc. The moral forces, according to Rawls, are “the basis of equality, the qualities of man, on the basis of which one must be treated according to the principles of justice” (TJ, 504/441). Knowledge of moral forces and their essential role in social cooperation, as well as knowledge of other general facts, is all that is morally relevant, Rawls believes, in deciding the principles of justice that should reflect the status of persons as free and equal legal persons. A thick veil of ignorance is therefore supposed to represent the equality of purely legal persons and not in some other contingent or social role. In this respect, the veil interprets the Kantian idea of equality as equal respect for legal persons (cf. JC 255). Rawls` original position, with its “thick” veil of ignorance, represents a different conception of impartiality than the utilitarian requirement to consider the wishes of all equally. The original position ignores all information about the current circumstances and the status quo, including the special wishes and interests of each.