How could we design the fairest possible world for everyone living in it, considering that each individual has unique and differing needs, that there are finite limits to the resources we must all share, and that we hold a vast range of divergent and conflicting beliefs, principles and perspectives about what a good society would be?
American political philosopher John Rawls’ proposed the idea of the “original position”, inviting us to imagine a procedure for producing a truly ‘just’ society (fair for all) that could be accepted by all, rather than having to be enforced by power. The original position is a hypothetical point of view from which any rational person would come to the same conclusions about the basic organising principles of society. Rawls suggests that this position of consensus could be reached if we were able to step outside of our own biases and self-interests, as if stepping behind a “veil of ignorance”. Behind the veil, we are asked to consider how best to ensure justice throughout society by distributing a fair balance of basic social goods such as rights, liberties, duties, powers, opportunities, income and wealth. Having no knowledge of our own identities and personal desires, this deliberation must be shaped only by the ability to think rationally, knowledge of the various competing conceptions of justice within ethical theory, and a basic knowledge of general facts about the physical world and human psychology and behaviour.
Perhaps the biggest challenge of creating a just society is the challenge of diversity. Humans have many common needs and desires, but also an incredible range of specific niche and individual requirements, some of which directly conflict with the needs and desires of others. How do we prioritise whose needs to fulfil? The trick of the veil of ignorance, is that though it denies us knowledge of our own position in society it still leverages the motivation of our personal self-interest, only now in relation to all possible positions. We know that we will exist somewhere in society, but we do not know who we will be and where we will find ourselves when we emerge from behind the veil. Under such conditions it is rational to act in the self-interest of all parties. Therefore, Rawls maintains that it would make sense to distribute social goods in such a way that they produce the best possible outcomes for the worst off in society. If the worst possible position in society is as good as it can be (considering the limitations of natural resources) then we have protected our own self-interest, and the self-interest of all other members of the society. To choose to privilege certain groups over others in the hopes of being one of the lucky ones would be a very risky strategy. While the gamble may or may not pay off for you individually (would you take this risk?), Rawls argues that such a choice would lead to an unsustainable outcome. Any society which begins with a structural injustice affecting a whole sector of its population will be unstable in the long-term. These unjust structures will inevitably require enforcement by persuasion and power rather continuing to be accepted through rational consensus.
While Rawls’ conception of the original position is specifically intended to address the overtly political question of the organisation of societies, it is an interesting experiment to apply this thinking device to the activity of design. Just as in the political realm, designers are often faced with difficult balancing acts, having to decide whose needs and desires to prioritise.
What would it mean to practice design with justice for all? What might this look like and how could this be achieved?
*Further Reading
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bianchin, M., & Heylighen, A. (2017). Just design. Design Studies, 54, 1–22.
Freeman, S. “Original Position”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = plato.stanford.edu