In A Theory of Justice, Rawls attempts to make a rational study of social ethics by using reason to determine what a just society

should look like and how a rational group of people would organize themselves. One major topic of interest that Rawls presents is the veil of ignorance concept and its role in the creation of original position. Two further concepts of importance to the theory of a just society are the difference principle and the concept of individual liberty in society. Together, these three concepts provide a basis for the discussion and critique of Rawls' theory and its implications for the pursuance of justice. Rawls' approach to justice as a theory proposes that principles of justice can be determined through the rational thinking of individuals shrouded by a veil of ignorance. In a purely hypothetical situation, the veil of ignorance creates an original position of equality in which persons under the veil have no knowledge of status, position in society, personal wealth or natural abilities. From behind the veil of ignorance, a rational, objective and disinterested group of people would choose a system of justice that ensures an equal distribution of rights and duties.

The veil of ignorance involves a presumption of equality and equal liberty of those behind it, supportive of the egalitarian rights of individuals. Thus individuals will choose to support the lowest members of society because one might end up in the lowest position after the veil is lifted and would want to be equally protected. From the perspective of original position, the social contract would be formed to "guarantee a just society without sacrificing the happiness or liberty of any one individual" per Rawls.

The veil of ignorance concept is of significant interest because Rawls' principles of justice simply cannot exist without it. Equal footing and ignorance as to what position one will end up in society is critical to the rational individual's ability to properly formulate just principles to govern society. Of course, the most glaring criticism of this concept is the fact that creating the veil of ignorance in real-life situations is impossible. However, the veil is a highly useful theoretical tool for Rawls in his conceptualization of original position and social contract.

Furthermore, in the Rawls study guide, Rex Martin contends that the original position is "quintessentially moral", in that it can be entered into at any time by anyone as it serves as a medium for the debate and determination of societal principles based on "free, equal, rational and moral persons". In contrast, Karen Lebacqz argues in "Six Theories of Justice" that the veil of ignorance cannot succeed in providing neutrality as it does not remove basic economic and political knowledge, thus inherent biases about society remain to contaminate the rational discussion of governing societal principles.

In addition to the veil of ignorance, the difference principle is of major importance in A Theory of Justice. Rawls states that there are two principles of justice: 1. "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others." 2. "Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and attached to positions and offices open to all." These basic principles control the distribution of rights, duties and advantages in a just society.

In short, the liberties of individuals may be maximized if not infringing on other members of society and if the lowest members are adequately supported. This creates acceptable or permissible inequality, otherwise known as the difference principle. The difference principle holds that inequalities are permissible in a just society but only if

those inequalities are to the benefit of the least advantaged. It is important to remember that the goal of these principles is not democracy, but justice.

The difference principle is another essential aspect of Rawls' theory because it stands in contrast to the utilitarian viewpoint of the greater good for the greatest number of people. According Lebacqz, individuals' choice of the difference principle over utilitarianism is known as the strategy of "maximin". Per Lebacqz, the maximin strategy stipulates that under the veil of ignorance, people in the original position would choose to "maximize the minimum". In other words, since one doesn't know what position they hold in society, it's in one's own selfinterest to protect the position of the lowest members of the group. Thus Rawls argues that it is rational for those in the original position to employ the strategy of maximin so that a system is promoted in which limited social inequality is possible. However, unlike utilitarianism, the ruin of some members of society for the benefit of the common good is not possible. Fundamental to understanding the difference principle is adopting a positive view rather than a negative view of distribution. Specifically, the unequally powerful must use that power to the benefit of the lesser powerful rather than restraining themselves for the benefit of the least.

Analysis of the difference principle reveals several specific critiques. First, who determines which members of society are the least advantaged? Rawls does not account for discrimination based on race or other personal characteristics, but uses income as a measure of position and power in society. The difference principle itself does not prevent a distribution of goods or wealth according to race or gender. Moreover, the strategy of maximin inherent to the difference principle does not account for risk-taking members of society. Per Lebacqz, such individuals may choose a principle of justice that involves less safety but offers the opportunity for greater gain. Finally, Lebacqz contends that the difference principle violates a "Kantian norm", in a sense that it uses some people as a means to others' ends. The question that remains is if it is any more just to use the most advantaged to aid the least than it is to use the least advantaged to the benefit of the most advantaged.

Moreover, the difference principle does not effectively explain how natural, innate differences in skill and ability can be adequately distributed in today's society. Rawls does argue that equality of opportunity, specifically through education, can be utilized formally by society so that "all have at least the same legal rights of access to all advantageous social positions". Yet according to Liz Brent in the Rawls study guide, the family structure remains an obstacle to equality of opportunity but Rawls offers the principle of redress to cope with individuals being born into unequal circumstances. Similar to the difference principle, Rawls states that "society must give more attention to those with fewer native assets and to those born into the less favorable social positions". Per Brent, the redress principle can be implemented through education as an equalizer both of social standing and inherent talent.

Although the difference principle is one of the most critical concepts in A Theory of Justice, the topic of individual liberty is essential to the conception of a just society. More specifically, Rawls defines liberties in a hierarchy of importance, the first being "freedom of thought and liberty of conscience and the second being "freedom of person and the civil liberties". Furthermore, Rawls contends that liberty can only be defined by determining who is free, what they are free from and what the freedom means.

The principles of justice state that all individuals have a right to equal basic liberties and the liberty of individuals may be maximized if they do not infringe on other members of society. Moreover, liberty can be restricted only for the sake of a more extensive system of liberties thus raising the issue of rational individuals needing to decide as to which are more valuable amongst liberties. Lebacqz raises the issue of the benefits and burdens of liberty, specifically the "choice of a principle of liberty depends upon a judgment that the benefits from having the liberty will outweigh the harm of having others exercise that same liberty". Thus, one may benefit personally from exercising a liberty but must also bear the burden of other members of society also exercising that same liberty.

Rawls contends that free and equal individuals have a right to basic liberties but also have natural duties. Basically, since autonomous individuals make up institutions, they have a duty towards society and institutions to articulate their needs and voice their opinions equally. In turn, the institutions have a duty to protect this equal voice and individuality itself. Although Rawls is very protective of the individual, there is an assumption of a power elite to which the responsibility to form these institutions will be given. The system then is only as equal as one can put into place.

Rex Martin further details a critique of Rawls' concept of individual liberty. Martin notes that although Rawls uses the term "rights" frequently in A Theory of Justice, he does not attempt any analysis of the specific rights mentioned. This has led to barriers in Rawls' justification of his concept of individual liberties. Martin argues that the tension in Rawls theory stems from the framework of expectations. In the original position basic liberties are not fully specified, thus one cannot have a legitimate expectation of these liberties nor a right to them. According to Martin, there would be no right to liberties per the original position but only through the determination of institutions can expectations of rights flourish.

In conclusion, three major topics of interest and importance in Rawls' A Theory of Justice are the theoretical concept of the veil of ignorance and the implications of the original position, the difference principle and distribution in society and the concept of liberty and the role of individuals' rights in society. Rawls' use of these concepts has formed a solid foundation for the criticism and debate of justice in society that cannot be ignored.