Okin says (Ch. 5) that because Rawls only includes “heads of households” in the original position, the deliberators cannot ask certain questions about justice, namely, questions pertaining to sexual hierarchy and privilege as it exists in the family. We could understand this to mean that we need more information in the original position than what Rawls allows in order to make intelligent decisions about what justice requires. Roper too seems to make a similar argument. On p. 51, he argues that in order for deliberators to make intelligent (informed) decisions about healthcare justice, deliberators would have to be aware of certain kinds of economic information. Again, we see an author arguing that more information about the world needs to be included in the original position in order for deliberators to make good decisions.
(1)
If we need to include worldly information in the original position in order to make good decisions, where do we stop? Indeed, why not just start from real, existing social conditions in order to theorize about justice instead of starting, as Rawls does, with the ideal situation of the original position?
Argue whether you think it is better to theorize about justice starting from existing social conditions (e.g. existing conditions of poverty, existing conditions of oppression, etc.) or whether you think it is better to start from ideal conditions (as Rawls does). By “argue,” I mean you should present at least one developed reason as to why you think one is better than the other.
If you think that it is better to theorize about justice starting from ideal conditions (like the original position) then say what is special about this methodology that enables one to better know what is required of justice which the alternative approach does not allow.
If you think it is better to theorize about justice starting from the ground up, starting from existing social conditions (e.g., existing conditions of class inequality, existing conditions of sexism, existing conditions of oppression or social exclusion, etc.) then say what is special about this methodology that enables one to better know what is required of justice which the alternative approach does not allow.