In his first book “Theory of Justice” Rawls put forth his most famous idea, the idea of “Original Position”. In this exercise everyone must imagine themselves behind a veil of ignorance. Once behind the veil you have no social standing, race, nationality, abilities or any other distinguishing qualities. You are then told that you will be placed back into the world without any knowledge of where you will end up. Now behind the veil of ignorance you must setup a system for the world not knowing where in it you will be placed. Rawls believes that a person in this situation would, in their own self interest, guarantee a minimum of rights and opportunities for everyone within the world, in order to avoid possibly being placed into an undesirable situation. Rawls states the reason for original position as being in order to avoid the contingencies of the social world, “the conditions for a fair agreement on the principles of political justice between free and equal persons must eliminate the bargaining advantages that inevitably arise within the background institutions of any society from cumulative social, historical, and natural tendencies.” (Rawls, 23) Rawls believes that everyone in the “Original Position”, would setup a society along the lines of the one that he advocates in “Political Liberalism”.
Not everyone would agree with Rawls’ second principle of justice due to their being in a superior social position and therefore not caring to guarantee equal opportunity, and certainly not willing to sacrifice to guarantee that any equality would benefit the least advantaged. This is were “Original Position” comes into play. “The agreement in the original position on the two principles of justice must be an agreement founded on rationally autonomous reasons.” (Rawls, 307) By imagining yourself without any advantage one can see the necessity for the second principle of justice, and would in fact demand it in order to protect your own interests.
Once Rawls sets up the basic liberties and equalities that must exist in a just society he then proceeds to explain how various comprehensive doctrines can be incorporated into the society without conflict. Rawls disagrees with many earlier philosophers such as Kant, who believed that a society could be created fairly with only one comprehensive doctrine. He sees differing comprehensive doctrines as inherent in democracy. “The diversity of reasonable, comprehensive religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines found in modern democratic societies is not a mere historical condition that may soon pass away; it is a permanent feature of the public culture of democracy.” (Rawls, 36) There are two basic parts required to bring about an intermingling of comprehensive doctrines; one all doctrines must be reasonable, and two an overlapping consensus must exist. Both of these requirements are controversial, but they do allow for a possible society wherein all may live their comprehensive doctrines, and participate in the political.
The first (and hardest to define) requirement for a unified society is that all comprehensive doctrines be reasonable. Rawls defines reasonability when, “persons are reasonable in one basic aspect when, among equals say, they are ready to propose principles and standards as fair terms of cooperation and to abide by them willingly, given the assurance that others will likewise do so.” (Rawls, 49) He goes on to state, “This reasonable society is neither a society of saints, nor a society of the self-centered.” (Rawls, 54) Rawls views reasonable as being self evident and essential for communal reciprocity. An example of an unreasonable comprehensive doctrine would be a cult that requires its members to murder people in order to achieve heaven. This extreme example does not fit within a society of reasonable doctrines since it infringes upon others right to life. But comprehensive doctrines that would be reasonable would be for example, Christianity and Judaism, since both advocate a system of morality that respects others basic rights and fits within the overlapping consensus.
Rawls defines overlapping consensus as when, “Citizens…look to their comprehensive doctrines, view the political conception as derived from, or congruent with, or at least not in conflict with, their other values.” (Rawls, 11) Overlapping consensus exists within a society that combines the agreement of various differing comprehensive doctrines into a society that does not conflict with any of the views held by every reasonable person.
Another aspect of overlapping consensus is how it is reflected in the society that is created by it. The Rawlsian society is a combination of differing comprehensive doctrines that work together. Rawls defines a society as fitting into the overlapping consensus if, “The framework of basic institutions and the principles, standards, and precepts that apply to it, as well as how those norms are to be expressed in the character and attitudes of the members of society who realize its ideals.” (Rawls, 12) Another aspect of this is, “they (citizens) generally endorse that conception of justice as giving the content of their political judgments on basic institutions; and second, unreasonable comprehensive doctrines (these, we assume, always exist) do not gain enough currency to undermine society’s essential justice.” (Rawls, 39) So the economic system, education system, media and basically everything would be acceptable by everyone holding a reasonable comprehensive doctrine, and anything that did not fit into this society would be deemed unreasonable by Rawls.
There are a number of values that Rawls states are already part of the overlapping consensus; “values of equal political and civil liberty; fair equality of opportunity; the values of economic reciprocity; the social bases of mutual respect between citizens.” (Rawls, 139) In addition there are many institutions that are universally agreed upon to be wrong, such as: slavery, limited suffrage, religious intolerance, and forced labor. These commonly held views can form a basis for the conception of justice that is created by the overlapping consensus of comprehensive doctrines.
“Since there is no reasonable religious, philosophical, or moral doctrine affirmed by all citizens, the conception of justice affirmed in a well-ordered democratic society must be a conception limited to what I shall call “the domain of the political’ and its values.” (Rawls, 38) This statement shows Rawls’ views on how the overlapping consensus is purely political in nature. He argues that people have a sense of justice that uses overlapping consensus to create political values. “A sense of justice is the capacity to understand, to apply, and to act from the public conception of justice which characterizes the fair terms of social cooperation.” (Rawls, 19) This public consensus of justice can allow for a political dialogue to take place, which enables reciprocity to exist between various communities and holders of comprehensive doctrines.
Rawls has answered his question; "How is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical and moral doctrines?" (Rawls, 4) He shows in “Political Liberalism” how it is possible to create a society that both protects individual liberties, while at the same time creating a true democracy with equality of opportunity. He resolves the issue of differing comprehensive doctrines through the use of reasonableness and overlapping consensus. His two principles of justice ensure that individual rights are protected and secure. Political discussion is allowed for through individual sense of justice and ensuring that unreasonable comprehensive doctrines are excluded from the society. Most importantly true democracy is enabled by ensuring equality of opportunity and equal influence upon the political process.
