When discussing distributive justice, late US philosopher and Harvard University professor John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice stands out as the most important work on the subject.
In his book, Rawls maintains that laws should be made behind a “veil of ignorance.” Liberalism argues that people originally lived in a natural state, but later decided to form societies to live together. This then led to the question of how to make laws in a way that ensures justice, as living together requires working out a social contract — laws — governing community members.
According to Rawls, to make just laws, those who take part in the legislative process must be completely blind to their own social background, political party, class and religion, as if they were making decisions behind a “veil of ignorance.”
In other words, all laws should be made behind this veil.
In reality, the method is impossible. Every lawmaker belongs to a political party and they more or less try to benefit themselves and harm their political enemies. Rawls of course understood that no lawmaker can become completely blind to facts about their own place in society, yet his concept of the veil of ignorance is an ideal that is well worth keeping in mind, and justice can be achieved by ensuring procedural justice.
Imagine lawmakers who know nothing about their own social backgrounds and political affiliations: If they were going to pass a bad law, they would worry about its negative effects on themselves. It is like dividing a cake: If the person dividing it will be the last to get a piece, they will definitely divide it as fairly as possible.
To a large extent, Taiwan owes its democracy today to the pioneers of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has played an essential role in helping the nation build its democracy. For that reason, Taiwanese expect the members of the party, who today are enjoying its benefits, to have a superior understanding of democracy.
Unfortunately, since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took office nine months ago, her administration has been rather disappointing. Pension reform, for instance, has turned into a nationwide battle. How could that have happened?
The making and amendment of the pension laws are supposed to take place behind a veil of ignorance. However, the way several DPP politicians have openly talked about pension reform with pro-DPP commentators on TV shows is hardly any different from the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) anti-communism rhetoric in the past.
If they were truly behind a veil of ignorance, military personnel, civil servants and public-school teachers would not have been treated like enemies, because politicians would not know anything of their own background.
Two draft amendments and a draft bill to reform the pension system is to be sent to the Legislative Yuan for review next month. The DPP must keep in mind the veil of ignorance principle and not make the mistake of only identifying with its party and viewing all public-sector employees as KMT supporters — or even think that by hurting them it would consequentially hurt the KMT.
If legislators can adhere to the veil of ignorance principle, they will be able work together to make laws that are just and fair despite their varied political affiliations.
Hopefully the Tsai administration will be able to lead Taiwan toward becoming a better and even more democratic nation.
Allen Houng is a professor at National Yang Ming University’s Institute of Philosophy of Mind and Cognition.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers