Modern US philosopher John Rawls:

 

The question is, how best to agree a fair structure for society. Rawls proposed a thought experiment in which the structure of society is decided by a group of people who cannot know what their own talents and situations are going be within the society they design. From this 'original position', behind a 'veil of ignorance', everyone will be motivated to find a structure for society in which they will not find themselves oppressed. The answer, according to Rawls, is likely to be a rights-based society in which individuals rights to free speech and freedom from oppression are respected as a first priority. And it will be a society largely, though not totally, egalitarian, one in which as a matter of principle (the 'difference principle') economic differences are allowed but only where they can be shown to benefit the least well-off members.

​

1. (video) Political Theory - John Rawls (The School of Life 6’33”)

 

2. (video) Introduction to Rawls - A Theory of Justice (Then and Now 16’26”)

​

3. (video) Michael Sandel

Harvard Lectures on Justice, Lecture 7/14 (Deal is a Deal, from 23’06” to 55’04")
Michael Sandel introduces the modern philosopher, John Rawls, who argues that a fair set of principles would be those principles we would all agree to if we had to choose rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power.
 

4. (video) Harvard Lectures of Justice, Lecture 8/15 (What’s a Fair Start, from 0’00” to 24’56”) 
Rawls argues that even meritocracy - a distributive system that rewards effort - doesn’t go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted can’t claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order
…and 

Episode 8/16 Part 2: (What do we Deserve, from 24’56” to 55’06”)

Sandel discusses the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ($200,000) with the salary of television’s Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? According to John Rawls, it is not.

​