Logotyp: till Uppsala universitets webbplats

This paper approximates the study of a natural experiment to John Rawls’ thought experiment ‘the original position’ (OP). It argues that laboratory experiments have been unsuccessful in making legitimate approximations of the OP because of their inability to present convincing worst-case scenarios. Notably, the effects of decisions made by agents in the OP are meant to determine agents’ and agents’ descendants’ life chances, and the reason why Rawlsarrives at the maximin principle is closely tied to the undesirability ofending up as ‘worst off.’ Constrained by the need to comply with ethicalstandards, laboratory experiments have not been able to produce bad enough worst-case scenarios totest whether this is a valid assumption. Identifying ‘vulnerability to a radically undesirable although uncertain outcome’ as the crucial feature ofthe OP, the paper argues that the 1969 US drafting system, the Vietnam lottery,was able to produce satisfactory conditions for a natural experimentalapproximation. Using the results of Laura Stoker’s and Robert S. Erikson’s Caught in the Draft: TheEffects of Vietnam Draft Lottery Status on Political Attitudes (2011), the paper examines howvulnerability prompted changes in respondents’ preferences and interprets thesechanges as if they were the expression of agents’ preferences in the OP.Results support the idea that people, when exposed to vulnerability-inducingconditions, alter their convictions to ensure the protection of theirself-interests. This is in line with the empirical assumptions that Rawls makesabout preferences as he arrives at the maximin principle. The conclusion of thepaper, therefore, supports the maximin principle as the likely result ofdiscussions behind the veil of ignorance.