Hobbes Versus Rawles On The Fool

I

Both Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls propose an idea of a social contract, for society. Hobbes' account gives us the Leviathan, and Rawls gives us his Theory of Justice. For Rawls a social contract is hypothetical, in other words people would agree to it if they were to choose it.1 He creates a thought experiment, to show what people would choose if they were to decide on a social contract. This exists in what he calls the "original position, which is similar to a state of nature.2 The thought experiment then begins with a group of people, behind what he calls a "veil of ignorance". By doing this they do not know their social class, wealth, natural abilities, the distribution of assets in society, or anything else about themselves or the society.3 They must then must decide how society would be set up.4 Since none of them know details about what would benefit them, they will then advocate for a society that abides by Rawls' two principles of justice.5 First there is the liberty principle, which advocates basic liberty for everyone. Second, there is the difference principle favor economic equality, with inequalities that benefit the worst off.6 The veil of ignorance, ideally creates an egalitarian society with equal rights, and inequalities only exist if they redistribute wealth equally.7 Rawls then uses Kantian reasoning to say that since a rational being would choose these principles, these are the principles that should be adopted.8 Unlike the original position of Rawls, the state of nature for Hobbes is violent, and anarchic.9 Man has the right to use his own power, but he can transfer that right and enter into a social contract to escape the state of nature.10 Hobbes also states that making and keeping contrac...

... middle of paper ...

...ct. Even if the fool does not believe in justice, Hobbes believes he will be cast out of society, which makes the promise for anyone's survival bleak.21

V

Overall, Hobbes gives a very powerful response to why the fool should not break the social contract. While Rawls gives an excellent theory of justice, that makes an excellent case for fairness and rights, it is left with a glaring problem that the fool can exploit. The problems with veil of ignorance make the fool's argument hard to defend against. Actually assuming the veil of ignorance seems a bit questionable, and there is a real problem with what can really be forgetting behind it. Even if that critique is ignored, it creates a problem, because the end result are just principles about how a society should be. The argument that it is still in the fool's best interest to break the contract still stands.