Reading Comprehension

Please help me to understand this rc.

My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract. In order to do this we are not to think of the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular form of government. Rather, the idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice, I shall call justice as fairness. Thus, we are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitute his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust. The choice which rational men would make in this hypothetical situation of equal liberty determines the principles of justice.

In 'justice as fairness', the original position is not an actual historical state of affairs. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice. Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like. I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances. Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain.

Justice as fairness begins with one of the most general of all choices which persons might make together, namely, with the choice of the first principles of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions. Then, having chosen a conception of justice, we can suppose that they are to choose a constitution and a legislature to enact laws, and so on, all in accordance with the principles of justice initially agreed upon. Our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it. Moreover, assuming that the original position does determine a set of principles, it will then be true that whenever social institutions satisfy these principles, those engaged in them can say to one another that they are cooperating on terms to which they would agree if they were free and equal persons whose relation with respect to one another were fair. They could all view their arrangements as meeting the stipulations which they would acknowledge in an initial situation that embodies widely accepted and reasonable constraints on the choice of principles. The general recognition of this fact would provide the basis for a public acceptance of the corresponding principles of justice. No society can,
of course, be a scheme of cooperation which men enter voluntarily in a literal sense; each person finds himself placed at birth in some particular position in some particular society, and the nature of this position materially affects his life prospects. Yet a society satisfying the principles of justice as fairness comes as close as a society can to being a voluntary scheme, for it meets the principles which free and equal persons would assent to under circumstances that are fair.

A just society, as conceptualized in the passage, can be best described as:
(1) A Utopia in which everyone is equal and no one enjoys any privilege based on their existing positions and powers.
(2) A hypothetical society in which people agree upon principles of justice which are fair.
(3) A society in which principles of justice are not based on the existing positions and powers of the individuals.
(4) A society in which principles of justice are fair to all.
(5) A hypothetical society in which principles of justice are not based on the existing positions and powers of the individuals.

The original agreement or original position in the passage has been used by the author as:
(1) A hypothetical situation conceived to derive principles of justice which are not influenced by position, status and condition of individuals in the society.
(2) A hypothetical situation in which every individual is equal and no individual enjoys any privilege based on the existing positions and powers.
(3) A hypothetical situation to ensure fairness of agreements among individuals in society.
(4) An imagined situation in which principles of justice would have to be fair.
(5) An imagined situation in which fairness is the objective of the principles of justice to ensure that no individual enjoys any privilege based on the existing positions and powers.

Which of the following best illustrates the situation that is equivalent to choosing "the principles of justice" behind a "veil of ignorance"?
(1) The principles of justice are chosen by businessmen, who are marooned on an uninhabited island after a shipwreck, but have some possibility of returning.
(2) The principles of justice are chosen by a group of school children whose capabilities are yet to develop.
(3) The principles of justice are chosen by businessmen, who are marooned on an uninhabited island after a shipwreck and have no possibility of returning.
(4) The principles of justice are chosen assuming that such principles will govern the lives of the rule makers only in their next birth if the rule makers agree that they will be born again.
(5) The principles of justice are chosen by potential immigrants who are unaware of the resources necessary to succeed in a foreign country.

This is a pretty abstract topic.

summary:
A just society, a society which is fair to all, can be created by starting with the principles of justice under veil of ignorance.

1. 4; -- fair to all;
2. 4;
1; incorrect -> This is appears to be answer but think its incorrect because its qualified by position,status and condition. The second para talks about much;
2; incorrect -> definition of just society
3; incorrect -> much broader in scope; it includes the agreements ( constitution/law etc) after the formation of principles of justice. The author only intended formation of principles of justice.
4. correct; The hypothetical situation to derive principles of justice.
5. incorrect; This is not the original position to start with; This is more like a just society;

3. 4; This is the best case that satisfies the conditions of para2; Rest of the choices include some kind of bias; even in case 2;

Phew this passage is whack. This is a classic example that we see sometimes in ivory towered academia, where the author seems to be writing in a way to confuse, rather than clarify. This is so darned dense that it's nearly impossible to figure out what the heck they're saying.

GmatVerbal, impressed that you tried to tackle it! We didn't quite follow your explanations though, so unsure if we're agreeing with you or not.

Here's how we approached it.

Problem A:
First we tried reading the whole thing sentence by sentence - so tough to crack the meaning. So then we tried to see if we could figure out what the answers mean. They all sound so similar! Here's our reasoning:

1 - no mention of Utopia in the passage - gonna eliminate
2 - at first this one looked good, since much of the passage is about the "social contract" and "agreements" - the "agree" word was appealing. But, the argument is not about "principles" being fair ("justice as fairness" seems different than "principles are fair") so we're gonna eliminate this one too.
3 - hmmm - this is the same as 5 except that 5 is "hypothetical"! Interesting... And after working through #5 and eliminating it, we think that this is the answer.
4 - We think this one is a trap - if you just skim the passage, you'll easily catch the "justice as fairness" thing. This answer seems too easy!
5 - The "hypothetical" reference in the passage is about how to create a model for a perfectly just society, against which our real society could be compared, to determine if our real society is in fact just. So, the "hypothetical" part is NOT about the definition of "a just society" - thus, we can rule this one out.


OMG that was exhausting. There is no way this is a real GMAT problem is it? This would take forever on an actual test.

We might come back to this again later to work through the other two - this is really interesting to try and figure out but it's also very intimidating - and a lot of work!

Thanks for posting, imskpwr - please let us know where this problem came from!
EssaySnark

I cannot comprehend anything out of this passage.

Very difficult passage. Can some one please help me how to deal with this kind of passage.

I googled about this passage and realized that this passage is appeared in Indian CAT exam and adopted from the essay by John Rawls "theory of justice". The original poster may provide correct the answers.

My reading comprehension is very limited by my limited english skills in general and I always give benifit of doubt to experts like "Essay Sharks".

Here is my understanding of the passage:

In first para:
The author describes what is his understanding of justice. He goes on to say that, justice is not just about implementing the laws(i.e. social contract, constitution etc..) fairly but that those very laws need to be fair to all in the society. But those very laws to be fair to all,they need to be established in fair conditions.
To achieve that objective - there need to be ground rules ( based on which social contract/laws etc..are based) that are established fairly. These ground rules the author calls principles of justice. For the ground rules to be fair they need to be established by people involved in the process to be fair. i.e. they are not influenced or biased in any way. Author calls this unbiased condition in which the ground rules written as "original position". See para 2.

Para 2: Now, author defines Original Position : Original position is the situation that defines the state of people involved in establishing the ground rules.
This para goes on saying that ... the people involved should not know their position, their strengths, weaknesses and any other things that may influence their decisions. Basically they should not know any thing. (Is it really possible? unless they are mentally retarted.[That is why the author calls this base condition is hyphothetical]). This is what he calls working under the veil of ignorance.
The author thinks by working under this veil of ignorance, the ground rules would be fair.

para3: He elaborates the above two paras more clearly.
i.e. establishing principles of justice( ground rules) would allow the laws based on them would be fair and nobody could critisize. And those laws would be fair because they are established on fair ground rules. He goes on saying that a new born will be in fair society even though the place he is born could affect what he materially can have(i.e. rich dad / poor dad thing), but he would get fair opportunities in a just society. ( my comments: not sure this would happen).


Based on above my understanding: I would attempt the following questions:

1. Just Society -- end of the day concept is simple - society that is just to all;

2. Original position -- This comes from para2;
1. problem with choice I see it as the qualification of the statement with position, status and condition. As per the author it much more than those three factors. He describes them eloborately in para2.
2. This defines more of a just society -
3. "A hypothetical situation to ensure fairness of agreements among individuals in society." This to me more like a situation after the ground rules are established ( so that the laws can be established fairly).
4. An imagined situation in which principles of justice would have to be fair. -- Looks like correct answer. This is the situation under which the ground rules are established.
5. An imagined situation in which fairness is the objective of the principles of justice to ensure that no individual enjoys any privilege based on the existing positions and powers. -- This looks very close to answer. tough one.

3. Veil of ignorance - This is an interesting question. The question try to realize a hyphotical situation in real world. How one could be unbiased with a properly functioning brain?

1. There is no way to prove that these immigrants would be unbiased when setting up ground rules.
2. childeren - same they still be biased in their limited thought.
3. no way to prove they are unbiased
4. This is correct and tricky. Ground rules are established by those who are going to be part of the society in which they are going to be born. So, even they are biased now, that bias is not going to help when they are born in the society ( for which the rules are being established).
5. can't be proved that they are unbiased.

GmatVerbal wrote:My reading comprehension is very limited by my limited english skills in general and I always give benifit of doubt to experts like "Essay Sharks".

LOL ... it's EssaySnark.

Oops! apologize for the mistake.

Got a PM on this one...

I do not think that this is full plagiarism in the cut and paste sense. But rather in the cut and paste and change a few words sense.

John Rawls' "Theory of Justice" is what this is hacked from (GMAT Verbal tracked that down with a little help from our friend GOOGLE).

This passage is not appropriate for the GMAT, not even for fun. This has nothing to do with anything that you will see on test day. It misses the point of complexity on the GMAT. This is just long with lots of big words and lofty concepts. Complex GMAT passages are really more about the structure and the relationship - not some sort of huge passage full of jargon. And do not mistake - this is jargon. Philosophers would follow this easily since it uses their language. But this is not fair game on the GMAT.

I only hope that people will read this posting before they devote their time to this inappropriate passage!

By the way - I love the "veil of ignorance" -- if anyone is interested it is something like this -- you should make choices on different things like how tax money is spent without reference to your own position. This is the "veil of ignorance." So if you are thinking of how to allocate resources globally you would not know if you are a wealthy American, or a victim of violence in Somalia.

Rawls believed that using the veil of ignorance concept people would always want to help the worst off. Because a few dollars means nothing to most - but if we did not know which person we were in the world then we would be scared to death that we might turn out to be an oppressed woman in a very poor country forced to carry water 5 miles in jars. So we would say - send that money to Africa! That American does not need a new car - that woman needs running water or at least a cart to carry the water jugs in....

The veil of ignorance is a way to use the selfish nature of people to get them to make fairer decisions. Only if a person is scared that they might live a certain life will they really have the desire to improve that life.

If you want to know about this concept and Rawls - one of my favorite modern philosophers PM me and do not waste time with this passage.