NAME- ANKIT ZODGE

SRN. NO- 201901280

BBALLB SEM V

CIE III
COURSE TEACHER- Prof. Divyanshu Priyadarshi
 1) Explain in detail the theory of original position and the veil of ignorance as
proposed by John Rawls. Also explain under what circumstances does Rawls accept
inequalities in a society?

Original position
The original position is a central feature of John Rawls’s social contract account of justice, “justice as
fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). The original position is designed to be a fair and impartial
point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up
this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree
upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature
of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are
deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They
do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics,
biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented with a list
of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are
assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances
their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and
fundamental interests. Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position
are two principles of justice: The first guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the
fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good.
The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to
fairly compete for powers and positions of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-
purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to
maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons.

Veil of Ignorance
All people are biased by their situations, so how can people agree on a “social contract” to govern how
the world should work. Philosopher John Rawls suggests that we should imagine we sit behind a veil of
ignorance that keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal circumstances. By
being ignorant of our circumstances, we can more objectively consider how societies should operate. Two
primary principles supplement Rawls’ veil of ignorance: the liberty principle and the difference principle.
According to the liberty principle, the social contract should try to ensure that everyone enjoys the
maximum liberty possible without intruding upon the freedom of others. According to the difference
principle, the social contract should guarantee that everyone an equal opportunity to prosper. In other
words, if there are any social or economic differences in the social contract, they should help those who
are the worst off. And, any advantages in the contract should be available to everyone.
So, according to Rawls, approaching tough issues through a veil of ignorance and applying these
principles can help us decide more fairly how the rules of society should be structured. And fairness, as
Rawls and many others believe, is the essence of justice.

Basically John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice treatise, the ‘original position’ was defined as a pre-
political abstraction from reality in which a group of people who know nothing about themselves, such as
their age, gender, or even names, are asked to choose principles of justice that could serve as the standard
for a constitution, laws, and adjudication mechanisms. The most rational choices made from behind such
a “veil of ignorance”, Rawls contended, would result in equal rights and liberties for all; equality of
educational and employment opportunities; and a guaranteed minimum of means.

2) Discuss the importance of customs in law as per Savigny with the help of your own
examples. Also discuss the criticism of Savigny’s thoughts.

“Law is founded and not made”, the adage is the premise of the historical school of law. The historical
school of law was established by Friedrich Karl and Von Savigny. As per this school, the law is the
formation of connections between the nearby circumstances and states of individuals, the law isn’t
established by any political prevalent yet found and given by individuals.

Defenders of Historical schools place the traditions of the individuals as the significant wellspring of law
which ought not be disregarded. The verifiable school of law owes its improvement to the authentic
school of statute which accepts that as customs and propensities for individuals change, the law ought to
likewise grow as needs be. The chronicled school of law dismisses the normal school of law and
pragmatist school of law which gives accentuation on God and judges as the significant wellspring of law.

Purposes behind the improvement of the historical school of law:

1. It came as a response against the normal school of law which accepted that there are sure rules
that are all around pertinent without mulling over any social, verifiable or some other
elements.
2. It likewise came as a response against the positivist school of law which accepted that law is
made by the sovereign and the individuals will undoubtedly comply with the laws regardless
of whether the law made is abusive.[ii]
Criticisms of Savigny’s thoughts
As of now talked about, a uniform and exact meaning of law is a long way from the real world, and
Savigny’s Volksgeist isn’t a special case. It has likewise a few reactions by different legal advisers, which
are as per the following:

1. Volksgeist not generally law: Dias says that numerous organizations like bondage have started
not in volksgeist however in the comfort of a decision government.
2. Inconsistency of the hypothesis: Savigny, from one perspective, accentuated the national
character of law however then again, he prescribed the strategy for Roman Law to be
embraced for the cutting edge conditions. Subsequently there is irregularity in the hypothesis
of Volksgeist.
3. Volksgeist isn’t a selective wellspring of law: According to Savigny, volksgeist is the main
wellspring of law in the public arena, however it isn’t right. Ruler Lloyd additionally said that
Savigny misjudged the importance of enactment for current society. To the extent society is
built up the law is additionally to be created in the general public by enactment too.
4. Idea of Volksgost is itself obscure: Some guidelines of standard law may not mirror the soul
of the entire populace, for example neighborhood customs. Savigny allowed for these by
perceiving the presence of ‘internal circles’ inside a general public. The main inquiry remains:
if law is the result of a Volksgeist, how is it that only a few people and not all have developed
an uncommon standard? Then again, a few traditions, for example the Law Merchant, were
cosmopolitan in source: they were not the animals of a specific country or race.
5. Overlooked different methods of advancement of Law: Law is once in a while utilized
intentionally to change existing thoughts; and it might likewise be utilized additionally
between State co-activities in numerous circles. Indeed, even in Germany one may example
Bismarck’s canny and effective endeavor to cut the ground from under the feet of the
communist development by presenting the Railway and Factories Accident Law 1871, a long
time before social conditions were ready. Significant guidelines of law now and again create
as the aftereffect of cognizant and brutal battle between clashing interests inside the country,
and not because of vague development, e.g., the law identifying with worker’s organizations
and industry. Development doesn’t follow an inflexibly decided way.
6. Other law affecting components overlooked: Savigny in his hypothesis disregarded different
variables that assisted with starting law. He completely overlooked the appointed authority’s
capacity to make the law. Paton expresses that the inventive work of the appointed authorities
and legal scholars were dealt with rather too gently by Savigny.

3) Explain how social cohesion in a Homogenous Society is different from that in a

Heterogeneous society?

Social cohesion is a related concept that parallels that of social integration in many respects. A socially
cohesive society is one where all groups have a sense of belonging, participation, inclusion, recognition
and legitimacy. Such societies are not necessarily demographically homogenous. Rather, by respecting
diversity, they harness the potential residing in their societal diversity (in terms of ideas, opinions, skills,
etc.). Therefore, they are less prone to slip into destructive patterns of tension and conflict when different
interests collide. Too frequently, public debate on immigration revolves around the negative effects of
immigration’dilution of domestic culture and the many immigrant cultures’ instead of on its positive
effects. Immigration creates diverse societies in which different cultures collide and create something
new. This is the most exciting part of having a heterogeneous society rather than a homogeneous society.
We should celebrate these collisions, not fear them. It might be difficult at times to have another culture
challenge your cultural norms and assumptions, but it is rarely harmful. From challenge comes growth.
For instance, the different cultures that exist in Vancouver influence newcomers in many ways. This does
not mean newcomers completely lose their culture in the face of these new cultures. On the contrary,
newcomers keep their cultural practices and understandings and combine them with the new ideas and
cultures they come across. Rather than losing their original culture, newcomers build on their culture and
gain new perspectives that they might not have otherwise seen. Immigration enriches domestic culture in
the same way. Instead of Canadian culture becoming diluted and lost, as we hear posited far too often, it
becomes more understanding and more diverse. Just as much of the immigrant’s original culture stays
with them, so do the worthwhile underpinnings of Canadian culture as well. On top of those
underpinnings, though, we build new ideas of what Canadian culture can be. In Vancouver, for example,
you can spend a weekend going to a hockey game on Friday, shopping and eating at the Punjabi Market
on Saturday, and then spend the afternoon at the Richmond Night Market on Sunday. I would take that
over homogeneity any day. Culture is not a static thing. It is ever-changing. That does not mean that we
should not try to conserve some of our cultural traditions that we hold dear. Tradition can be one of the
best things about life. But when we try to keep our cultures from changing or growing at all, we do
ourselves a great disservice. Certainly, change and growth are not always easy processes. The road to
cultural understanding and fusion is slow and fraught with tension, strife, and many other difficulties. But
not many things really worth doing in life are easy.