I recently learned about John Rawls idea of an original position.

Until I read a post today (http://mattbruenig.com/2012/06/20/why-does-everyone-misunder...) comparing social contract theory to the original position (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position), I hadn't viewed the social contract theory in the same hypothetical way as Rawls's idea.


I need to remember that all of this philosophical thought is looking for a foundation, a place to begin. If concepts such as justice and right vs. wrong mean anything they must be measured against something.
Often, when reading a philosophical text, the author's tone is as if his/her ideas are absolute, objective truth. More often not, I think this is because they assume their readers are sophisticated enough to understand the philosophical approach, something I am still trying to adjust to.

Hobbes started with a social contract theory and ended up reaching the conclusion that absolute monarchy was the most desirable form of government.