Final answer:
The original position is a hypothetical stance in which individuals choose principles of justice under a veil of ignorance, with the Maximin strategy guiding them to select principles that would ensure justice even for the least well-off among them.
Step-by-step explanation:
John Rawls' original position is a hypothetical scenario used to reason toward principles of justice, particularly in his theory known as justice as fairness. From this position, individuals choose principles of justice under a veil of ignorance, which means they do not know their own place in society, their class position or social status, nor do they know their fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, their intelligence, strength, and the like. This veil ensures no one is advantaged or disadvantaged by the outcomes of natural chance or the contingencies of social circumstances. Therefore, the principles chosen are presumed to be just as they do not favor any particular position.
The Maximin strategy, also referred to as the Maxi-Min Principle, comes into play as a rule for decision-making in the original position. It dictates choosing the option with the greatest minimum payoff. Here, individuals would opt for a system of justice that maximizes the position of the least well-off in society since they could potentially find themselves in this position.
Rawls proposes two principles of justice derived from this reasoning:
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
These principles would hypothetically be chosen because they serve to protect individuals in the worst-off position and ensure they are not as disadvantaged as they might otherwise be. This system contrasts with both utilitarianism, which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, and strict equality, which might not maximize the position of the least advantaged.