John Rawls's 'veil of ignorance' asks what principles of justice people would choose if they didn't know their own position in society—rich or poor, talented or not. From this 'original position,' Rawls argues, rational people would choose principles protecting the worst-off. Critics object that the thought experiment smuggles in assumptions: why wouldn't risk-takers behind the veil gamble on unequal societies where they might end up wealthy?
It can be inferred from the text that
all philosophers agree with Rawls's conclusions about justice
the veil of ignorance proves that equality is always preferable
risk attitudes play no role in choices about social arrangements
what we assume about human psychology may influence conclusions drawn from thought experiments
Correct Answer: D
Choice D is the best answer. Critics argue hidden psychological assumptions affect the outcome.
- Context clues: Critics say the experiment "smuggles in assumptions" about risk aversion.
- Meaning: Different assumptions about risk-taking would yield different conclusions.
- Verify: The contrast between Rawls's risk-averse conclusion and risk-taker objection shows assumption dependence.
💡 Strategy: When critics identify hidden assumptions in an argument, infer that conclusions depend on those assumptions.
Choice A is incorrect because critics raise objections. Choice B is incorrect because the thought experiment's conclusions are challenged. Choice C is incorrect because critics specifically raise risk attitudes as a factor.