The Leviathan Under the Veil of Ignorance: Is It Possible to Build a Fairer Society Without Knowing What Place We Would Occupy in It?

 

The Leviathan Under the Veil of Ignorance: Is It Possible to Build a Fairer Society Without Knowing What Place We Would Occupy in It?

A philosophical investigation into authority, power, justice, liberty, and the limits of human nature, inspired by Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls.

Author: R.V. Garcia

Introduction — What If We Didn’t Know Who We Would Be in the Society We Are Building?

Imagine humanity were given the opportunity to rebuild the world’s political and social organization from scratch. Before birth, every individual would symbolically participate in crafting laws, distributing responsibilities, organizing the economy, and defining the limits of power. However, there would be one fundamental condition: no one would know what position they would occupy in that society.

You could be born into a wealthy family or into extreme poverty. You might become a ruler or an ordinary citizen, belong to a majority or a minority, enjoy good health or face a disability, and be born in a powerful nation or a vulnerable region. You might secure a position of prestige or depend entirely on public institutions for access to education, healthcare, security, and justice.

Faced with this uncertainty, what rules would you agree to establish?

Would you defend permanent privileges for the wealthy if there were a chance you might be born among the poorest? Would you accept unchecked political power if you could end up subjected to an authoritarian ruler? Would you consent to the absence of legal safeguards if you didn't know whether you would one day need them to defend your freedom?

These questions lead us to two great contributions of political philosophy: Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan and John Rawls’s veil of ignorance.

Hobbes investigated the necessity of an authority capable of preserving peace and preventing human conflict from destroying the conditions of collective life. Centuries later, Rawls developed a hypothetical procedure for thinking about principles of justice without allowing people to choose rules designed to favor their own social standing.

Although they developed distinct theories, their ideas allow us to formulate a joint question: Is it possible to build a society in which authority is strong enough to guarantee order, yet subjected to principles of justice that no one can manipulate for self-serving ends?

This is not to claim that this combination would definitively solve humanity’s problems. Rather, the goal is to investigate whether it could substantially reduce injustices, arbitrariness, abuses of power, and the conflicts generated by poorly organized institutions.

The guiding hypothesis of this essay is that a fairer society depends not only on individual good intentions, but also on impartial rules, accountable institutions, and permanent mechanisms of oversight and correction.

1. Thomas Hobbes and the Leviathan — Why Does Society Need Authority?

Published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan became one of the foundational works of modern political philosophy.

Hobbes sought to understand how individuals with differing interests—driven by desires, needs, fears, and ambitions—could coexist without remaining in a permanent state of insecurity.

In his renowned philosophical framework, the state of nature represents a condition in which there is no common authority strong enough to guarantee the enforcement of rules and resolve conflicts effectively.

This does not mean Hobbes historically proved that all human beings once lived in a state of perpetual war. Rather, it is a philosophical argument regarding the consequences of lacking collective security guarantees.

When people lack trust that others will respect agreements, even someone wishing to live peacefully may feel compelled to preemptively protect themselves. Mistrust breeds mistrust; fear stimulates the anticipation of violence; and individual attempts to secure self-defense end up producing insecurity for everyone.

In this context, political authority emerges as a solution to a collective problem: how to make relatively stable coexistence possible among people who do not necessarily share the same interests.

The Leviathan symbolizes the sovereign power constituted to secure peace and establish the conditions for social life. Through a recognized authority, rules no longer depend solely on individual willingness, but are backed by institutions capable of enforcing them.

This insight remains vital. A society cannot adequately protect the rights of its members when it lacks effective mechanisms to deter violence, resolve disputes, execute judicial decisions, and hold lawbreakers accountable.

Yet, a fundamental problem arises: Who protects society when authority itself becomes a threat?

The need for order does not prove that any form of power is legitimate. Nor does it mean that a ruler should stand above the law, or that security can indefinitely justify the suppression of individual liberties.

The conception of sovereignty defended by Hobbes grants the sovereign vast powers, and his theory does not correspond to the contemporary model of the separation of powers and constitutional checks and balances. Therefore, we cannot simply transplant his solution to the present without examining its limitations.

The dilemma remains: we need authority to ensure coexistence, but we also need limits to prevent authority from destroying the very conditions of a just society.

This is precisely where John Rawls’s thought offers a complementary contribution.

2. John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance — What If We Didn’t Know Who We Would Be?

In A Theory of Justice, originally published in 1971, John Rawls introduced the idea of the original position, associated with the concept of the veil of ignorance.

This thought experiment asks us to imagine individuals who must choose the fundamental principles governing a society without knowing their own future positions.

They do not know their wealth, social status, natural talents, religion, personal convictions, or where they will stand among the groups comprising the community.

The objective is not to erase knowledge about how societies function. Participants can consider general facts about economics, psychology, social cooperation, and human needs. What is stripped away is the specific knowledge that would allow each person to tailor rules to their own advantage.

This distinction is essential.

If someone knew in advance that they would be born among the wealthiest, they might advocate for a structure preserving economic privileges. If they knew they belonged to a majority group, they might not afford minority protections the same weight. If they were certain to hold political office, they might prefer institutions with minimal oversight.

However, when future standing is entirely unknown, every decision must account for the possibility that its consequences will affect the individual unfavorably.

The veil of ignorance thus serves to reduce the influence of private interests in the selection of principles of justice.

This does not mean everyone would inevitably reach the exact same conclusions. The experiment is a tool for moral and political reasoning—not an actual historical event or a mathematical proof demonstrating a single correct social arrangement.

Rawls used this procedure to ground his conception of justice as fairness. Among his central concerns are the guarantee of equal basic liberties and the arrangement of social and economic inequalities according to principles of justice, including fair equality of opportunity and the protection of the least advantaged via the difference principle.

The question he raises is remarkably powerful: What rules would we accept if we could not choose them knowing in advance that we would be among their beneficiaries?

Perhaps we would be more cautious in granting permanent privileges. Perhaps we would demand more robust legal safeguards. Perhaps we would recognize that accessible public institutions and social safety nets do not merely benefit those who need them today, but anyone who might need them tomorrow.

The merit of this thought experiment does not lie in promising a perfect society. It lies in forcing us to examine whether what we consider "just" would still seem just if our personal position were suddenly unknown.

3. The Philosophical Synthesis — An Authority Built Under the Veil of Ignorance

This marks the central proposal of this essay.

Hobbes and Rawls did not jointly formulate the system presented here. This synthesis is a philosophical hypothesis that draws upon elements of both thinkers to investigate a contemporary problem: How can we reconcile the need for authority with the demand for impartial justice?

Imagine that, before organizing society, participants had to decide simultaneously what powers the state should possess, which rights would be inviolable, and what mechanisms would prevent the abuse of authority.

They would not know if they would be rulers or ruled, rich or poor, politically influential or marginalized, majorities or minorities, nor whether they would need to rely on institutions to protect their rights against more powerful individuals.

Under these conditions, social organization could be designed around several fundamental principles:

3.1. Authority exists to protect society, not to appropriate it

Public power must have the capacity to enforce laws, guarantee security, resolve conflicts, and protect fundamental rights.

However, its legitimacy must not rest solely on brute force; it must depend on the public purpose justifying its existence and the limits preventing its arbitrary use.

An authority incapable of protecting the population fails in its primary duty. Conversely, an authority operating without checks risks transforming the citizenry into a tool for its own interests.

The proposed synthesis therefore demands both the capacity to govern and the obligation to remain accountable.

3.2. No individual should depend solely on the benevolence of those holding power

Imagine a society where a person's rights depend entirely on the personal whims of a ruler, their family's wealth, or proximity to influential groups.

If you did not know what position you would occupy in that society, would you accept an organization where your protection could vanish depending on who happens to be in power?

The veil of ignorance highlights the importance of legally guaranteed rights, independent courts, transparent procedures, and defense mechanisms accessible to all.

It is not enough to hope the powerful will be generous. We must establish conditions where citizens can assert their rights even when those in power have no interest in granting them.

3.3. Fundamental rules must be impartial, but they need not ignore real inequalities

Treating people with equal concern does not mean pretending everyone starts life under identical conditions.

Disparities in income, education, health, access to justice, and opportunity can severely restrict a person's genuine freedom.

A society organized around impartial principles must examine whether its institutions offer genuine opportunities or merely reproduce intergenerational advantages.

The goal is not to guarantee identical outcomes in every dimension of life, but to prevent arbitrary circumstances of birth from unjustifiably determining who can develop their capacities, participate in public life, and exercise their rights.

3.4. Power must find limits within the very system that constitutes it

If participants were ignorant of their future standing, they would insist on mechanisms preventing a ruler from rewriting the rules simply to stay in power or enrich allies.

This points toward independent institutions, public oversight, administrative transparency, legal accountability, and legitimate mechanisms for political alternation.

The objective is not to render the state powerless, but to ensure that the capacity to act never becomes a license to act arbitrarily.

3.5. Society must admit that its own rules may be flawed

No constitution, legal system, or political theory can perfectly anticipate all future circumstances.

A fairer society requires mechanisms to recognize flaws, correct injustices, and revise policies that produce harmful consequences.

This demands access to information, freedom of expression, independent investigation, public participation, and the ability to contest decisions without dissent being treated as a threat to order.

Stability does not require immobility. An institution preserves society's continuity precisely because it can correct its errors before they escalate into crises.

4. The Veil of Ignorance Applied to Real Life

This thought experiment gains true momentum when it moves beyond abstract debate to guide concrete questions about real-world institutions:

• In Education: Would we accept a system where access to quality schooling depends almost entirely on family income if we didn't know which family we would be born into?
• In Healthcare: Would we accept that essential medical care depends strictly on one's ability to pay if we might be born with a severe illness?
• In Justice: Would we accept that the outcome of a trial depends on the economic or political influence of the parties involved if we didn't know which side we would be on?
• In the Economy: What inequalities would we consider legitimate if we didn't know whether we would be among the beneficiaries or those facing the greatest hardships?
• In Politics: Would we accept unchecked authority if we didn't know whether we would be rulers, members of the opposition, or citizens subject to a government with which we disagree?

These questions do not automatically generate specific public policies. Each answer requires data, cost evaluation, institutional analysis, and democratic debate.

Nevertheless, the experiment provides a vital critical standard: verifying whether a rule can be defended on public grounds that do not rely solely on the privileged position of its proposer.

This same question applies to everyday life. Before defending a rule that affects others, we can imagine how it would impact us if we were in a different situation.

While this does not eliminate conflicts of interest, it makes it much harder to justify privileges simply because we happen to benefit from them at the moment.

5. The Limits of the Proposal — Human Nature Does Not Disappear with Good Rules

It would be intellectually dishonest to present this synthesis as a silver bullet.

People can agree that a society should be just and still profoundly disagree on what justice entails. Some prioritize individual liberty; others emphasize material equality, tradition, security, solidarity, or community autonomy.

The veil of ignorance does not erase these divergences. Instead, it offers a way to examine whether our arguments remain defensible once we strip away knowledge of our personal advantages.

There is also the problem of enforcement. Even if a society formulates reasonable principles, leaders may attempt to bypass them, institutions may fail, and organized groups may capture parts of the political apparatus.

Furthermore, power is not wielded solely by individual rulers. Economic interests, bureaucracies, private organizations, lobby groups, and disparities in access to information also shape collective decisions.

Consequently, a fairer society requires far more than an initial hypothetical agreement. It demands civic education, trustworthy institutions, freedom of inquiry, transparency, oversight, and public participation.

Another challenge is preventing the pursuit of security from being used to justify limitless power. History shows that institutions created to protect populations can easily be co-opted to restrict liberties, persecute opponents, or concentrate privilege.

The answer is not to eliminate all authority, but to recognize that authority and legitimacy are not automatic synonyms.

Power must be capable of fulfilling its functions, but it must also remain open to questioning, oversight, and accountability.

Finally, we cannot assume people will always choose the exact same rules from behind the veil of ignorance. The experiment is valuable precisely because it brings disagreements to light, tests arguments, and identifies principles capable of public justification.

This proposal must remain open to critique and revision. If new evidence or superior arguments reveal flaws in its conclusions, those flaws must be examined, not swept under the rug.

6. The Brilliant Bridge Between Order and Justice — The Constitutional Leviathan

The union between Hobbes and Rawls strikes at the heart of political philosophy: How do we create an authority strong enough to protect society from chaos without allowing it to become an engine of oppression?

While Hobbes starts from the problem of insecurity and violent death to justify sovereign power, Rawls proposes a hypothetical procedure forcing us to evaluate social rules without knowing our future station.

Placing these ideas in dialogue yields a powerful hypothesis: The Leviathan can represent the institutional structure necessary to maintain order, while the veil of ignorance functions as the moral criterion to evaluate the limits and legitimacy of that structure.

This formulation represents the interpretive synthesis developed in this essay, rather than a theory jointly shared or defended by the two philosophers.

The paradox emerges when we recognize that the authority required to enforce laws also possesses the means to weaken the mechanisms designed to limit it.

If citizens chose institutions without knowing if they would be rich or poor, rulers or ruled, they would undoubtedly demand safeguards against abuse. But how do we ensure those safeguards survive once power is established and takes control of the instruments of coercion?

This is the problem of institutional self-defense: Who stops the power responsible for enforcing rules from becoming capable of rewriting them for its own benefit?

The answer cannot rely solely on the personal virtue of those who govern. A durable political system must anticipate that leaders may be ambitious, make mistakes, or attempt to overstep their bounds.

6.1. The Temporality of the Veil: A Permanent Institutional Attitude

In Rawls’s theory, the veil of ignorance is part of a hypothetical procedure for choosing principles of justice. In this synthesis, we propose extending its logic as a recurrent criterion for evaluating institutions.

Laws should not be judged solely at their moment of creation. They must also be continuously evaluated in light of their real-world effects, unforeseen consequences, and the inequalities they may generate.

The guiding question should be: Would this rule still be defensible if tomorrow we had to live under its effects from the most vulnerable position possible?

This does not mean Rawls literally proposed a permanent institutional mechanism under this name. It is a contemporary application of his idea, designed to encourage the critical revision of public decisions.

A policy that appears advantageous to the majority at a given moment may devastate a minority. A rule created for an emergency may linger long after the emergency has passed. A measure meant to protect the public may end up unproportionally restricting rights.

Keeping the memory of the veil alive means subjecting decisions to public criteria, transparent justifications, oversight, and avenues for revision.

6.2. The Monopoly of Force and the Institutionalization of Mistrust

Hobbes assigned the sovereign a central role in guaranteeing peace. The synthesis proposed here adds a crucial requirement: society must institutionalize the capacity to distrust power itself.

The phrase “institutional monopoly of mistrust” is a metaphor for permanent oversight mechanisms, not the creation of a new state monopoly.

Independent courts, a free press, public data transparency, regulatory watchdogs, political opposition, and legal protections for citizens are not mere accessories to social organization. They are the instruments that allow us to investigate the exercise of power and contest potentially abusive decisions.

These mechanisms must possess autonomy and effective operating conditions. If they depend entirely on the goodwill of those they are meant to oversee, they will lose their teeth precisely when they are needed most.

The goal is not to paralyze state action, but to make it much harder for power to be exercised without justification, oversight, or accountability.

6.3. The Illusion of Moral Neutrality and the Limits of Reason

The veil of ignorance does not transform human beings into perfectly neutral observers. Even without knowing their future social standing, people will disagree on acceptable risks, collective priorities, and the principles governing resource and opportunity distribution.

While Rawls argues for specific principles of justice (including the difference principle), he does not prove that everyone placed behind the veil would automatically choose them.

Risk aversion might lead someone to demand robust protections against poverty and vulnerability. Conversely, fear of negative outcomes might breed an excessive status quo bias, blocking necessary reforms.

This is where Hobbesian concerns regarding order remain vital. Society needs institutions capable of making collective decisions and resolving disputes even when unanimity is absent.

However, the capacity to decide does not eliminate the duty to justify decisions. Order makes cooperation possible, but it does not automatically render every choice made in its name just.

This synthesis therefore demands two simultaneous capacities: acting when collective action is required, and correcting course when outcomes reveal injustice.

7. Final Reflection — What If Power Forgot It Could One Day Be on the Other Side?

Imagine you could establish the rules of society without knowing who you would be within it. You would not know your income, your profession, your political influence, your family background, or the opportunities awaiting you in life.

What rights would you deem indispensable? What powers would you grant the state? What mechanisms would you build to prevent anyone from turning a temporary position of authority into a permanent privilege?

What if you knew you would be the ruler, but did not know whether your successor would respect the limits you established? Would you leave the door open to abuse, knowing a successor could use those same doors against you?

This question inverts the perspective. The veil of ignorance does not merely protect those who fear being subjected to power; it also invites those who wield power to consider the consequences of the rules they enact. The person creating limits today may need them tomorrow when they are no longer in charge.

The individual with wealth today may face hardship tomorrow. The person exercising authority today may become dependent on another's decisions. A member of the majority may one day discover the value of minority protections. And someone who has never needed public services may, under different circumstances, rely on them to preserve their dignity.

This imaginative exercise will not automatically make us virtuous. But it forces us to do something rarer: recognize that our current position is temporary.

The hardest question is not how to choose between order and justice, but who holds the legitimacy to declare, during a real emergency, where order ends and justice begins—and for how long.

Perhaps the true test of a just society is not how it treats those at the top, but how it protects those who could be at the bottom. It is not enough to ask whether rules favor us today. We must ask whether we would still consider them just if we were standing on the other side.

Hobbes gave us the Leviathan so we wouldn't destroy each other. Rawls gave us the veil so we wouldn't deceive each other. What remains is simply the courage to use both at the same time.

Conclusion — Authority with Justice

Hobbes’s Leviathan and Rawls’s veil of ignorance stem from different concerns, yet they can be brought into fruitful dialogue. Hobbes reminds us that coexistence demands institutions capable of containing violence and preserving peace. Rawls invites us to evaluate those institutions without assuming we will occupy a privileged seat within them.

The synthesis proposed in this essay does not eliminate human conflict nor guarantee universal agreement on what is just. Yet, it offers a rigorous standard: Authority must be strong enough to protect society, but limited enough never to become a threat to those it is meant to protect.

Building a fairer society requires fundamental rights, genuine opportunities, oversight mechanisms, and the capacity to revise rules that perpetuate privilege. It also demands recognizing that no institution stands above questioning.

We cannot choose the circumstances of our birth, but we can question the rules determining our possibilities. Perhaps a society becomes truly just not when everyone agrees on the good, but when no one needs to know in advance who they will be in order to accept its rules.

This is the enduring task: to build institutions that do not rely on the exceptional virtue of those who govern, but remain capable of protecting people even when power falls into less virtuous hands.

Supplementary Report & Spiritual/Religious Reflection

The Leviathan, the Veil, and the Supreme: The Transcendental Dimension of Justice and Power

Author: R.V. Garcia Supplementary Study to the Essay "The Leviathan Under the Veil of Ignorance"

Introduction — The Missing Piece in the Political Equation

In the first part of this investigation, we analyzed the structure of human institutions through two lenses of Western political philosophy: the need for order and security in Thomas Hobbes (the Leviathan) and the pursuit of impartial, equitable rules in John Rawls (the veil of ignorance).

However, looking at human history and the crisis of modern institutions reveals a structural limit. If human consciousness is driven solely by material greed, the illusion of self-sufficiency, and the desire for domination, no constitution will ever be perfect enough to prevent corruption and abuse.

This is where spirituality and religion enter—not as exclusionary dogmas, but as the moral and metaphysical foundation missing from political philosophy. To build a just society, we must ask not only how power should be distributed, but to whom existence itself ultimately belongs.

1. The Illusion of Absolute Ownership and "Perfect Communism"

As Vedic traditions teach (through the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and the instructions of Prahlāda Mahārāja), one of modern civilization's greatest errors is the illusion of proprietorship.

We build skyscrapers, complex machinery, and financial empires, quickly arrogating to ourselves the right to absolute ownership of the Earth. Yet we forget that human beings do not create the fundamental ingredients of the universe. Water, earth, fire, air, and space—the raw materials of everything we manufacture—are the works of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ THE HIERARCHY OF EXISTENCE │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. THE SUPREME AUTHORITY (The Creator / God / Divine Order) │ │ └─ Creates fundamental elements and sustains life │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 2. HUMANITY (Administrators and Custodians) │ │ └─ Transforms matter and utilizes resources responsibly │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 3. THE ILLUSION OF EGO (The Desire for Absolute Ownership) │ │ └─ Root cause of greed, war, and injustice │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

When human beings realize they are merely temporary custodians of creation's goods, the foundation of true justice emerges: no one has the right to usurp resources necessary for another's subsistence, because all resources belong to everyone under the guardianship of the Supreme.

2. The Dialogue Among Humanity's Great Faiths and Philosophies

This perception is not exclusive to Vedic literature. A comparative analysis reveals a universal pattern—a perennial wisdom spanning ages and continents:

• In Christianity: Scriptures remind us that "The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it" (Psalm 24) and ask, "What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" Material wealth is passing; responsibility before the Creator is eternal.
• In Islam: The Quran establishes human beings as Khalifah (guardians or stewards) of the Earth. All property belongs to Allah, and selfish accumulation devoid of social responsibility violates the divine order.
• In Buddhism: The concept of Anicca (impermanence) demonstrates that seeking lasting happiness in temporary material structures is the root of suffering (dukkha).
• In Stoicism and Greek Philosophy: From Seneca and Marcus Aurelius to Plato, wisdom has always consisted in recognizing the Logos (the divine reason or order of the universe) and understanding that the material world is merely a transient shadow of true reality.
• In Modern Science: The Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) and quantum physics inquiries (as noted by Heisenberg and Schrödinger) confirm that physical matter is unstable, impermanent, and incapable of offering absolute security.

3. Connecting the Worlds: The Leviathan, the Veil, and Spiritual Consciousness

How do these two perspectives connect and complete one another?

Viewing the political system from a spiritual standpoint reveals that Hobbes, Rawls, and theology do not cancel each other out; rather, they explain different levels of the same reality:

┌─────────────────────────┐ │ SUPREME ORDER │ │ (God / Cosmic Laws) │ └────────────┬────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ POLITICAL AXIS │ │ MORAL AXIS │ │ The Leviathan (Hobbes) │ │ The Veil of Ignorance │ │ │ │ (Rawls) │ │ Need for terrestrial │◄─────►│ │ │ authority to maintain │ │ Demand for impartial │ │ peace and social order │ │ rules and protection │ │ │ │ for the vulnerable │ └─────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────┘

• The Leviathan (Hobbes) guarantees physical order: It prevents mutual aggression from destroying society. Yet without spiritual consciousness, the Leviathan risks turning into an arrogant and tyrannical earthly god.
• The Veil of Ignorance (Rawls) guarantees juridical fairness: It forces individuals to think about justice without selfishness. Yet the veil is a hypothetical procedure; it requires an inner moral force for individuals to actually practice it.
• Spiritual Consciousness brings necessary humility: It reminds both sovereigns and citizens that no one is above the laws of the universe. Political authority is temporary, wealth is transient, and true judgment of our actions extends beyond human courts.

Final Reflection — Human Limits and the Need for Grace

We build highways, fast cars, global networks, and towering buildings, yet we remain subject to birth, disease, old age, and death. Believing that technology or political power alone can save us from life's uncertainties is the mistake of the mūḍhas—those who blindly trust in their own inventions while forgetting the source from which everything springs.

A truly just society is born not merely when we have good laws written on constitutional paper, but when the men and women who enforce and live under those laws recognize their own limits.

• The Leviathan keeps us from killing one another;
• The veil of ignorance keeps us from deceiving one another;
• God-consciousness keeps us from deceiving ourselves, reminding us that true peace comes not from absolute control over matter, but from alignment with the source of all existence.

References (ABNT / Chicago Style)

• ALCORÃO. Translated by Samir El Hayek. São Paulo: Federação das Associações Muçulmanas do Brasil, 2013.
• AURELIUS, Marcus. Meditations. New York: Modern Library, 2002.
• BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPĀDA, A.C. Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 2015.
• BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPĀDA, A.C. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 2012.
• THE HOLY BIBLE. New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
• CAPRA, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. Boulder: Shambhala, 2010.
• EPICTETUS. Discourses and Selected Writings. London: Penguin Books, 2008.
• HEISENBERG, Werner. Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper Perennial, 2007.
• HOBBES, Thomas. Leviathan. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1994.
• PLATO. Republic. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2004.
• RAWLS, John. A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
• SCHRÖDINGER, Erwin. What Is Life? with "Mind and Matter" and "Autobiographical Sketches". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Bibliography and References (General Political Theory)

• LOCKE, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1689.
• NOZICK, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
• RAWLS, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
• RAWLS, John. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.
• ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. 1762.
• SANDEL, Michael J. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
• SEN, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
• STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY. “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
• STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY. “Original Position.” Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/

Methodological Note

The phrase “The Leviathan under the veil of ignorance” designates the interpretive synthesis developed in this essay. It does not correspond to a theory jointly formulated by Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. Proposals to extend the veil as a permanent criterion for institutional evaluation, as well as the metaphor of the “institutional monopoly of mistrust,” are argumentative developments specific to this text and should be understood as philosophical hypotheses open to critical debate.