How do you get a society that provides basic decent services to all citizens? Political theorist John Rawls had a good idea, and it was called ‘the veil of ignorance.’ SUBSCRIBE to our channel for new films every week: http://tinyurl.com/o28mut7
If you like our films take a look at our shop (we ship worldwide): http://www.theschooloflife.com/shop/all/

Brought to you by http://www.theschooloflife.com

Produced in collaboration with Mike Booth


Larry Hoover says:

what a legend john rawls is!

Shubham Bhushan says:

I always kept in my mind that the only reason I am who I am is purely an accident and that those who are not me are just unlucky. they are not slackers or thieves they are just unlucky who drew the unlucky have from a corrupt system

adstanra says:

I have been thinking about a situation where inequality may be a good thing, in a world of limited resources.

Imagine someone invents a refrigerator. This device could be very valuable, but because it is a new invention, the parts and assembly are very expensive. the only people who can afford it are the richer people in the society, so in the beginning they are the only ones who have them.

Profits from the invention go into building more of the devices and with time, the production gets cheaper. More companies join in, but they have all saturated the rich people market. Fortunately with improved assembly, availability of parts and competition , the price goes down so that more and more people have refrigerators.

I am sure something like this has happened for a large number of products.

We may benefit from people with greater wealth, who can buy products or invest in them, before that are affordable to the rest of us.

What we all really want is not equality. That in itself is no guarantee of happiness, but as Rawls said, we will need certain basic things to be happy and perhaps we will be able to afford these as a society.

I really don’t care if Bill Gates has a really big boat because I have everything I need for happiness, and I have benefited from his work. He has created wealth that has benefited us all ( I think that is fair.)

PaiNExoTiC says:

I’ve solved this problem years ago: Don’t have children at all or don’t have children in bad circumstances.

Carolyne Mas says:

Hahahaha, Trump’s image was used in connection with success, when everyone, both left and right, admired him for his successes before he became president…just as he was featured in many a rap song, again, until he became president. How richly funny.

orpat007 says:

Rawls is great!

shadfurman says:

Interesting, how many people are concerned about this lottery of fiscal fairness? At an extreme end, it’s certainly difficult to manage emotionally, born in extreme poverty where I’m unlikely to live past 5 and never know what it’s like to feel full or have a solid BM, but in the example given of being born in a poor Detroit family barely budges the emotional needle for me, actually sounds like a pretty good start in life.

I use nearly the same style of arguments for rights though. Which is more important to to you, being born where you have relative freedom or born into relative wealth (private or socially wealth)?

New perspective for me to get my head around.

Jason rodriguez says:

All this theory is, is “What if people who created the society were unbiased” I have these thoughts on an everyday basis lmao

Emmanuel Carneiro says:

did rawls say that at 3:46 or was it you guys? because i wanna know if i can quote him… thanks

Francisco Leon says:


Elf Machine says:

Rawls is absolutely brilliant

Hash Katz says:


Sieb Brouwer says:

Ignorance spawns impartiality – Rawls

GrumpyOldMan says:

3:00 The Veil Of Ignorance

Truth Finder says:

Interesting that Bill Clinton had invited Rawl’s to the WH several times, but ultimately chose to go with the Communitarian “Third Way”, a very dystopic view of global corporate dictatorship of “community”.

David Trujillo says:

That’s the mindset of a lazy person. Because risk taking has nothing to do with winning the lottery. Rather is a measure of opportunity. So, the question you should ask behind the veil of ignorance is how much opportunity there is for you to change the conditions of your birth? Also, it is not about jealousy, meaning it is not about being the top 1% right? Because if it is then you are just full of resentment. So if anything you want to ensure the world with maximum freedom, this might actually create extreme class differences, yet, it is about fairness, not equality.

Cheongho Foo says:

The audio could be better managed, otherwise, thank you for sharing. Cheers!

Tonixxy says:

I guess SJWs and libtards watched something like this, and then they all said it in 1 moment,
White privilege……..

Calpsotoma says:

This sounds like it’s related to the original position.

Byllgrim says:

“But we have a hard time explaining our sense of injustice”
“Eat the rich!”

Joe Ciliberto says:

Please do one on Roberto Nozick (libertarian), who argued against John Rawls (liberal). Thanks

Adriano Gianturco says:

And Nozick? It would be fair to do a Nozick video too.

Shubham Bhushan says:

finally. I always knew that the rags to riches shit is just a carrot being dangled in front of our eyes

Marco Di Franco says:

“…Rawls was obsesed by the Apollo space programme…”
Hang on, so how did the high risk Government project that costs 2.5% of the US GDP every year for 10 years to send a handful of the very best college educated ex US test pilots to the moon exactly help the lowest in US society.
How about that “difference principle” now? – inequalities allowed so long as it benefits the lowest in society.
It was Mankind’s greatest achievement in 20C. But how such a huge project over a long time work in Rawl’s world. (Brilliant film, by the way, superb)

Sterling Hillman says:

Put out a Robert Nozick response to Rawls!!

ChillNyeTheBroGuy says:

Of course the Veil of Ignorance thought experiment leads us to the conclusion of wanting to be born into a society with true justice, great education, great health care, and shelter for all. I’m quite sure capitalists, socialists, and communists all want those things. However, why must the state be the one to provide those things? There are 5 main characteristics that are inherent to the nature of the state.

1. The state can only exist through a. The governs consent and b. The obtainment of power the governed cannot have
2. Power entails corruptibility
3. Power is proportionate to the amount of tyranny it can cause
4. A select few, when compared to the size of the governed, have the obtained powers.
5. The state is unsustainable.

Firstly, I argue that the separation of the economy from the state must be fought for as ardently as the separation of church and state. This acts as a check and balance against the state. The state should be given one justifiable authority which is being the arbiter of justice in matters of the law. The amount of tyranny that can be caused by this is minimal to the good it can cause.

Now being that their is no separation of economy and state right now, we must fight to create this separation. We are living under corporatism which gives the individuals of the state enough power to deprive the governed of the equality of opportunity and true freedom of the market. I understand many socialists and communists want what’s best for the governed but the state will never be truly altruistic. Your methods of altruism give far too much power to the state. Even if the state is composed of altruistic individuals, its power is unsustainable. No ever-increasing power can free nor separate itself from the temptations of corruption. Recall the Lord of the Rings. We can see near the end that Frodo reached a corrupted state before throwing the One Ring into the fires of Mordor. The Lord of the Rings made the point that corruption will slowly consume even the most honest and altruistic of men. Rare are those who can truly fight corruption all their lives. It is due to this rarity that an increasingly powerful state cannot sustain itself. We must look to a system that brings forth the human desire to succeed. This system must also be efficient in a world of finite resources. This system, through competition and voluntary altruism, will bring forth the best of man and it has. Right now, we are living in the most prosperous and advanced time in human history. Yes there are still many problems but forced “altruism” via imposing punishment on those who do not want to willfully give you the fruits of their labor along with the vein hope of an honest state are not the answers to an imperfect society.

Limerence says:

I’m studying for my Politics and Society test in 3 days! What fun!

Dimple Tiwari says:

please explain it with an easy way

mynameisawesomeman says:

it’s extremely trivial to deduce that the lives of people are patently unequal… but to say that this situation is unfair is a huge over simplification.

Terry says:

Thank you! Love this series!

Hash Katz says:


maskarafrosch says:

Really nice work, but please include some ladies: Hannah Arendt, Martha Nussbaum, Seyla Benhabib, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, etc…

Brian Conradsen says:

Veil of the ignorant!

A horrific example of inane scientism.

An experiment where it is totally clear what the answers are before the unscientific method is applied.

Good is good. Marx is good. Vote for Marx.

GEN Gardening says:

How can an atheist preach moral philosophy? Fuck Rawls

 Write a comment


Do you like our videos?
Do you want to see more like that?

Please click below to support us on Facebook!