General remarks on contract theories. Note that the state of nature is

• a conceptual device
• capable of being entered by anyone at any time.

A. Rawls' goal is to determine the features of a just (fair) society and to and justify it, that is, show that rational agents would choose it. Such a society would be based on principles that are:

1. agreed to under conditions that characterize humans as free and equal beings
2. the object of rational choice

B . Original Position (O. P.)

• This is the idea of a "proper initial status quo" from which principles of justice are obtained
• It roughly corresponds to the original "state of nature" as described in contract theories, but it should not be taken as a primitive condition of culture. As such, the OP can be entered by one at any time
• The O. P. represents (for Rawls) the best conceptual device for achieving a set of fair principles with which to construct a just society.

C. The O. P. achieves such ideal choice by presupposing an agent chooses from behind a "veil of ignorance" according to which she cannot know:

1. her place in society, her social class, her social status, her fortune in the the distribution of talents and assets, her strength, or psychological propensities
2. her conception of the good, or her psychological propensities 
3. the particular circumstances of her society and the generation she belongs to.
   Problem: what's left of the person? Is such a stripping reasonable?
   Answers:

• the veil of ignorance strips the various interests and desires that make us partial agents , and therefore make us better, fairer moral deliberators.  In other words, one must eliminate all personal features one could not fairly appeal to in a debate for the determination of principles of justice.
• removing the knowledge of advantages or disadvantages due to natural chance or contingent social circumstances is necessary to start deliberation in a fair situation.

However, the agents in OP know

4. the general features of human psychology, economy, science, etc., i.e., all that is needed to come to a decision regarding basic principles

Notes. (1-4)

• guarantee the fairness of the principles grounding society
• bring it about that one is forced to choose for all
• elminate bargaining, as there are no bargaining chips
• make it possible to reach agreement.

In addition,

1. the agents choose on the basis of self-interest.

   NOTE: this makes the principles the object of rational choice.

D. Rawls proposes that we imagine ourselves in the O. P. and deliberate back and forth about what kinds of principles of justice we should endorse so as to test our current principles.  This process of conceptually testing the fairness and rightness of the principles leads to "reflective equilibrium", a state in which our principles and our considered judgments coincide; but it may not be a final, "once and for all" state of decision, as we may consider further new cases that may lead us to revise our judgments.  Rawls thinks that self-interested rational being will adopt maximin prudential guidelines giving raise to two fundamental principles:

1. each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.  Such liberties involve, political liberties and freedoms of the person.
2. social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
• expected to be to everyone's advantage ("maximin" rule applies)

NOTE: The idea here is that the only justification for departing from strict equal distribution is if everyone (especially the most disadvantaged) benefits.  This includes an attempt at redressing natural disadvantages.
• attached to positions and offices (e.g., political offices, etc.) open to all.
The two principles are serially ordered: that is, the first principle always is prior to the second (trumps it), and departure from the principle of equal liberty cannot be compensated for by greater social or economic advantages of the second principle.

• The two principles reflect Rawls' notion that rights and liberties are distinct from social and economic benefits, and that the primary value of justice is to preserve equal liberty.   But what meaning can individual liberty have for someone whose life is spent in the service of others--should other values, like respect, social worth, paid meaningful work, come first?
• Why adopt maximin policies? Why not be a risk taker?

Answer:
• Standard decision theory is unwise here because O.P. prevents us from having a good idea of the original probabililies. In other words, the choice is under uncertainty, not under risk.
• The other alternatives can be catastrophic for the agent.

E. The contrast to Utilitarianism: according to one version of Utilitarianism, a society is just as long as its major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of pleasure or satisfaction summed over the individuals belonging to it.  Rawls finds that the major problem here is that Utilitarianism does not care how the sum of satisfactions is distributed among individuals , for "correct distribution" just means whatever distribution yields maximum satisfaction. Ultimately, Utilitarianis confuses impartiality with impersonality by treating th whole of society as if it were one individual. But such a situation always leaves open the possibility that the violation of liberty of a few would yield a greater satisfaction of the many, and so, be unjust on a common intuition.

F.  The Kantian interpretation

• O. P. represents the Kantian position of autonomy by ruling out heteronomy from the first step: "the veil of ignorance deprives persons in the O. P. of the knowledge that would enable them to choose heteronomous principles; the parties arrive at their choice together as free and equal rational persons knowing only that those circumstances obtain which give rise to the need for the principles of justice".
• The principles of justice are analogous to categorical imperatives: they're principles of conduct that apply to people as free and equal rational beings.