Why is the ‘veil of ignorance’ crucial to Rawls’ approach to reasoning about justice?

The veil of ignorance is a thought experiment, where in those who are deliberating a particular conception
of justice are ignorant of what condition they have (That is, their class, race, sex, ability, nationality and
education) in the society where this conception of justice will be practiced. However, it is assumed that
the discussants desire, and know that they require basic needs, such as liberties, opportunities, powers,
wealth, and income. In short, they are ignorant about their situation in this hypothetical society, but well
aware of what is desired and required by those within this society.

The logic behind the veil of ignorance is that no rational being would risk designing a conception of
justice where they themself may potentially be subject to unjust principles

The goal of the veil of ignorance is to create moral impartiality amongst the discussants, and therefore
arrive at a conception of justice that is divorced by material and political self-interests, therefore forcing
all parties to insist on a very strong priority for basic liberties

So how is this crucial to Rawls’ approach to reasoning about justice?

Well, according to Rawls, fairness is the essence of justice, and the veil of ignorance is designed to help
human beings be fair in their evaluation of what justice is.

The veil of ignorance is therefore necessary and related to the two principles put forth by Rawls:

Firstly, there is the liberty principle, which suggests that the social contract should ensure that everyone
enjoys maximum liberty without intruding upon the liberties of others. Were it not for the veil of
ignorance, the discussants could not possibly draw the line between what is maximum liberty for
themselves, and where the liberties of others begin. Because they would naturally have little regard for
those in positions inferior to that of themselves. Because veil of ignorance affords the discussants no
information about their position in society, it allows them to make decisions impartially.

Secondly, there is the difference principle, which suggests that the social contract should guarantee
everyone an equal opportunity to prosper. In other words, if there are social or economic difference in the
social contract, they should most benefit those who are worst off in society. Given the nature of human
beings, if a discussant was aware of their advanced position in society, they would be less likely to make
concessions to those who are worst off. The veil of ignorance makes discussants able to make these
concessions, because they are made unaware of their position in society, and no rational human being
would risk being worst off and not receiving any benefits.

Also its worth mentioning that unlike Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes, which try to engage the reader by
offering an account of human life in the state of nature, Rawls’ veil of ignorance is a much more effective
way of creating a sense of moral impartiality, because it doesn’t simply rely on the reader’s sense of
empathy in deliberating on matters about justice, but also places the reader in a position where they are
equally as likely to be rich and poor, or educated or uneducated…etc. and therefore is more effective in
creating a fair social contract, which is the essence of justice.