Beyond the Veil: why Rawlsian Fairness is Too Blind

Artificial intelligence systems increasingly influence critical societal decisions, from healthcare resource distribution to criminal justice evaluations. While John Rawls’ theory of justice, especially his “veil of ignorance,” has become a prominent framework for promoting algorithmic fairness, this paper reveals a fundamental paradox in its use: unchanging principles of justice, when applied in evolving AI systems, can sustain or worsen existing inequalities. We demonstrate how algorithmic systems that meet initial Rawlsian fairness standards can create growing disparities through feedback loops and systemic biases. Our healthcare case study shows how seemingly neutral resource allocation algorithms can systematically harm vulnerable groups even when they meet formal fairness criteria.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences
Published
2026-03-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-025-00457-0
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Beyond the Veil: why Rawlsian Fairness is Too Blind

Dwayne Woods
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Beyond the Veil: why Rawlsian Fairness is Too Blind

Dwayne Woods
article en

Abstract

Artificial intelligence systems increasingly influence critical societal decisions, from healthcare resource distribution to criminal justice evaluations. While John Rawls’ theory of justice, especially his “veil of ignorance,” has become a prominent framework for promoting algorithmic fairness, this paper reveals a fundamental paradox in its use: unchanging principles of justice, when applied in evolving AI systems, can sustain or worsen existing inequalities. We demonstrate how algorithmic systems that meet initial Rawlsian fairness standards can create growing disparities through feedback loops and systemic biases. Our healthcare case study shows how seemingly neutral resource allocation algorithms can systematically harm vulnerable groups even when they meet formal fairness criteria.

Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.