Key Arguments

• Rawls restates the contractarian perspective: 'Now the contract doctrine looks at the problem from the standpoint of the original position. The parties do not know to which generation they belong or, what comes to the same thing, the stage of civilization of their society.'
• The veil of ignorance is 'complete' regarding intergenerational position: 'They have no way of telling whether it is poor or relatively wealthy, largely agricultural or already industrialized, and so on.'
• Parties 'are to ask themselves how much they would be willing to save at each stage of advance on the assumption that all other generations are to save at the same rates,' which forces them to consider fairness across the whole span of history.
• He clarifies that they 'are to consider their willingness to save at any given phase of civilization with the understanding that the rates they propose are to regulate the whole span of accumulation,' effectively choosing 'a just savings principle that assigns an appropriate rate of accumulation to each level of advance.'
• Rawls holds that 'Presumably this rate changes depending upon the state of society. When people are poor and saving is difficult, a lower rate of saving should be required; whereas in a wealthier society greater savings may reasonably be expected since the real burden is less.'
• He stipulates that 'Eventually once just institutions are firmly established, the net accumulation required falls to zero. At this point a society meets its duty of justice by maintaining just institutions and preserving their material base,' so savings is required only up to the full realization and stabilization of just institutions.
• He notes that this principle concerns savings 'as a matter of justice'; citizens may save more for 'various grand projects,' but that lies outside the just savings requirement.

Source Quotes

Even if we cannot define a precise just savings principle, we should be able to avoid this sort of extreme. Now the contract doctrine looks at the problem from the standpoint of the original position. The parties do not know to which generation they belong or, what comes to the same thing, the stage of civilization of their society.

Now the contract doctrine looks at the problem from the standpoint of the original position. The parties do not know to which generation they belong or, what comes to the same thing, the stage of civilization of their society. They have no way of telling whether it is poor or relatively wealthy, largely agricultural or already industrialized, and so on.

The veil of ignorance is complete in these respects. Thus the persons in the original position are to ask themselves how much they would be willing to save at each stage of advance on the assumption that all other generations are to save at the same rates. That is, they are to consider their willingness to save at any given phase of civilization with the understanding that the rates they propose are to regulate the whole span of accumulation.

That is, they are to consider their willingness to save at any given phase of civilization with the understanding that the rates they propose are to regulate the whole span of accumulation. In effect, then, they must choose a just savings principle that assigns an appropriate rate of accumulation to each level of advance. Presumably this rate changes depending upon the state of society.

Presumably this rate changes depending upon the state of society. When people are poor and saving is difficult, a lower rate of saving should be required; whereas in a wealthier society greater savings may reasonably be expected since the real burden is less. Eventually once just institutions are firmly established, the net accumulation required falls to zero.

When people are poor and saving is difficult, a lower rate of saving should be required; whereas in a wealthier society greater savings may reasonably be expected since the real burden is less. Eventually once just institutions are firmly established, the net accumulation required falls to zero. At this point a society meets its duty of justice by maintaining just institutions and preserving their material base. Of course, the just savings principle applies to what a society is to save as a matter of justice.

At this point a society meets its duty of justice by maintaining just institutions and preserving their material base. Of course, the just savings principle applies to what a society is to save as a matter of justice. If its citizens wish to save for various grand projects, that is another matter. The question of time preference and matters of priority I shall leave aside until the next sections.

Key Concepts

• Now the contract doctrine looks at the problem from the standpoint of the original position.
• The parties do not know to which generation they belong or, what comes to the same thing, the stage of civilization of their society.
• Thus the persons in the original position are to ask themselves how much they would be willing to save at each stage of advance on the assumption that all other generations are to save at the same rates.
• In effect, then, they must choose a just savings principle that assigns an appropriate rate of accumulation to each level of advance.
• When people are poor and saving is difficult, a lower rate of saving should be required; whereas in a wealthier society greater savings may reasonably be expected since the real burden is less.
• Eventually once just institutions are firmly established, the net accumulation required falls to zero. At this point a society meets its duty of justice by maintaining just institutions and preserving their material base.
• Of course, the just savings principle applies to what a society is to save as a matter of justice. If its citizens wish to save for various grand projects, that is another matter.

Context

Central portion of §44, where Rawls applies the original position to intergenerational justice and explains how a just savings schedule is conceptually determined.