Both Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls propose an idea of ​​a social contract, for society. Hobbes's account gives us the Leviathan, and Rawls gives us his Theory of Justice. For Rawls, a social contract is hypothetical, in other words people would accept it if they chose it.1 Create a thought experiment to show what people would choose if they had to decide on a social contract. This exists in what he calls the “original position, which is similar to a state of nature.”2 The thought experiment then begins with a group of people, behind what he calls a “veil of ignorance.” Thus they do not know their social class, wealth, natural abilities, distribution of goods in society, or anything else about themselves or society.3 They must then decide how society will be organized.4 Since no one of them knows the details about what would benefit them, they will therefore support a society that respects Rawls's two principles of justice.5 The first is the principle of liberty, which supports basic freedom for all. The second is the difference principle which favors economic equality, with inequalities that benefit the worst off. 6 The veil of ignorance ideally creates an egalitarian society with equal rights, and inequalities exist only if they redistribute wealth equally.7 Rawls then uses Kantian reasoning to say that since a rational being would choose these principles, these are the principles he should adopt.8 Unlike Rawls' original position, the state of nature for Hobbes is violent and anarchic.9 Man has the right to use his power, but he can transfer that right and enter into a social contract to escape the state of nature.10 Hobbes also states that entering into and maintaining a contract...... middle of paper......ct. Even if the fool does not believe in justice, Hobbes believes that he will be expelled from society, which makes anyone's promise of survival bleak.21 Overall, Hobbes gives a very powerful answer to why the fool should not break the social contract . While Rawls provides an excellent theory of justice, which makes an excellent case for fairness and rights, there remains a glaring problem that the fool can exploit. The problems with the veil of ignorance make it difficult to defend against the fool's argument. In fact, taking on the veil of ignorance seems a bit questionable, and there is a real problem with what we may actually have forgotten behind it. Even if this criticism is ignored, it creates a problem, because the end result is just principles about what a society should be. The argument that it is still in the fool's best interest to break the contract still stands.