THE RAWLS GAME

The Rawls Game consists of three rounds. In the first round I announce to the class that we are the elected representatives on the island republic of Nacirema. Each of us represents about one thousand constituents. Nacirema is a pre-industrial society and everyone either farms or provides services to the farmers. The people own their own farms and believe strongly in looking out for number one. They also share the widespread belief that no one should be forced to do anything against his or her will. To protect liberty to the greatest extent possible, the legislature has adopted the procedure that all policy decisions must be adopted by unanimous vote.

The rules for the game appear on the blackboard: (1) you may look at the cards, and (2) the measure will pass if the vote is unanimous. I then pass out cards and explain the situation that we are voting on. The island has been afflicted with a serious drought and many, but not all, of its people are now suffering from the drought. The mountaineers have water from a snowcap on the mountain and continue to flourish. The flatlanders, who are completely dependent on rainfall for their crops, are suffering. The mountaineers make up about one fifth of the population on the island. Those who have an "X" on their cards are mountaineers and those without a mark are flatlanders.

A proposal has been studied by our scientists and is now in front of the legislature for discussion and vote. The proposal is that water from the snowcap will be transferred equally to all farms on the island, and that an irrigation system will be built to make this possible. The mountaineers currently are living very well, since traditionally they have had an abundance of water for their crops. The flatlanders, however, even in the best of times have barely eked out an existence and in the present crisis are unable to do even that. In a few years, if the waterworks project is adopted, the unequal economic and social division between the mountaineers and flatlanders will be erased and everyone on the island--flatlanders as well as mountaineers--will be at the same economic and social level.

After some discussion and an exploration of alternative proposals, we bring this proposed waterworks project to a vote. Generally some of the mountaineers will vote against the proposal. When they do, I point out that a weakness is present in our system. We have followed the two procedures (looking at the cards and trying to get a unanimous vote) in an effort to protect everyone's liberty, but a tyranny of the powerful minority has resulted.

The second round of the game begins at this point. I entertain suggestions for changing either of the two rules of the game. The suggestion to have a majority vote is quickly made. I change the second rule to incorporate the suggestion. The two rules now read: 1) you may look at the cards; 2) the measure will pass with a majority vote.

The situation for our second vote is as follows. A serious disease has broken out on Nacirema that takes the lives of 10% of the population every year. Five people on the island have been found to possess an enzyme that protects them from the disease. Our scientists have also found that this enzyme provides a cure and prevents the disease in others who are vaccinated with the enzyme. After considering various alternatives, the scientists have determined that all five people must be hooked up to machines so that the enzymes can be extracted and used to bring the dreaded scourge to an end. The five people will have to be hooked up twenty-four hours every day for at least ten years--and perhaps longer.

Five representatives have marked cards while the rest have unmarked cards. Each of the representatives with a marked card has one constituent with the valuable enzyme. During the discussion of the proposal, the consent of the five constituents is sought by their representatives. Sometimes the consent of the individuals is withheld until enormous sums of money are given; sometimes a small child is one of the people with the enzyme; and sometimes a constituent simply refuses to give up his or her freedom and rejects being attached to a machine. In the last case, the one who refuses is sedated and kept ?happy? throughout the time that he or she is on the machine.

The vote is taken on the enzyme-extraction procedure, and generally a majority of the class votes in favor of the proposal. I then point out that a tyranny of the majority has occurred: the rights and liberties of one or a few persons have been overridden for the good of the many.

The third round then begins. Again I invite a suggestion for a possible modification of the rules. Sometimes a student will suggest not looking at the cards. I take that suggestion and pass out a set of cards, asking the students not to look at the cards until after the vote is taken. In addition, I suggest that to protect the liberty of each person we return to the requirement that the vote be unanimous. The two rules now read: 1) you may not look at the cards; 2) the measure will pass if the vote is unanimous.
 For the third round, another proposal to reduce the suffering of the flatlanders faces the legislature. The proposal is that each mountaineer family will be assigned four flatlander families. If the mountaineers wish, they may provide food and shelter for their designated flatlander families. The flatlanders, meanwhile, are required to provide labor for the mountaineer farms. No wages are given for the labor, only food and shelter. The food and shelter are provided at the discretion of the mountaineer.
During the discussion of the proposal, someone invariably identifies it as a slave or serfdom proposal. When the vote is taken, the proposal is generally defeated with a unanimous vote. I then point out that we have adopted Rawls' perspective of justice and ruled slavery out. This procedure, according to Rawls, helps us to grasp the origin of a right not to be enslaved. We don't ?in real life? actually engage in turning down the cards and voting unanimously; however, when we realize that such practices as slavery are not allowed in liberal societies, the image of the cards down can help us to grasp how and why they were ruled out. It is as if such a procedure were used.

A problem that arises with the cards down is a tyranny of orthodoxy. This form of arbitrary treatment may be illustrated by an incident that occurred during the game. On one occasion a student refused to vote with the cards down. He gave as his reason that he did not know who he was with the cards down. Some students in the class became rather anxious, and one student asked him: "Do you mean you are in favor of slavery?" On that occasion I witnessed some of the attitudes that can lead to a tyranny of orthodoxy. The student who refused to vote was subjected to some harsh questions and, at least momentarily, he was ostracized from the group.

The game illustrates Rawls' influential efforts to find a balance or a middle way between political factions on the left and right, between socialism and capitalism, between the liberal left and the religious right. The use of a game to understand Rawls is appropriate, since Rawls himself makes use of an analogy between games and policy decision making. Rawls recognizes both strengths and weaknesses in socialist, capitalist, and religious societies. He makes a considerable effort to preserve the strengths and eliminate the weaknesses of each.

Rawls addresses two forms of tyranny that can arise from the liberal traditions and two types of tyranny that can arise from communitarian traditions. In the traditions of moral liberalism, the tyranny of the majority can occur in socialist and utilitarian systems. A tyranny of the powerful minority can arise from a natural-rights version of liberalism, a version generally associated with capitalist or free market economies. In the communitarian traditions, a tyranny of orthodoxy can occur in the strict forms of communitarianism and a tyranny of perfectionism can occur in the moderate forms.

The tyranny of orthodoxy can emerge in the following way. The turning down of the cards on such issues as slavery seems to be so right that anyone who is unwilling to invert the cards seems to be wrongheaded and lacking in fair-mindedness. The cards-down perspective, however, requires a willingness to suspend knowledge of one's place and time in the world. It requires the adoption of a timeless perspective. Some have called this an eternal perspective and have associated it with a religious point of view.

The "view from eternity" can pose a major problem: people begin to argue over who is adopting the perspective and who is not. When people claim to adopt the perspective, they are sometimes subjected to proofs of fidelity and proofs of orthodoxy. Those unwilling to adopt the timeless perspective may be viewed as infidels and on occasion may be subjected to inquisition and persecution. Battles break out over orthodoxy.

The tyranny of perfectionism is closely related to the tyranny of orthodoxy. Philosophers in Aristotle's camp allow that everyone is capable of inverting the cards to determine the good life. The tyranny of perfectionism may occur in two ways. It can occur when a particular notion of what it means to be human is imposed on people who may not share that notion. It may also occur when a specific notion of the good life is imposed on some who have a different notion of the kind of life worth living. When Aristotelians maintain that everyone is capable of turning down the cards to determine the good life, they assume that everyone can agree on a conception of the good life. This turns out to be a highly questionable assumption.