I will be outlining three ‘challenges from the right’ aimed at Rawls’ theory of justice. I am of the opinion that all three of these challenges succeed. John Rawls was an influential political philosopher of late twentieth century, this was largely due to his work, ‘A Theory of Justice’ in 1971. He answers a very old question: what is justice? He saw justice as a virtue of the state. He was of the opinion that it is not the duty of the state to make people virtuous. He believed that people should be allowed to choose their own conception of the good, the state should not interfere in any way as that would result in infringing on people’s rights to freedom and equality. Rawls tries to combine two key political values: freedom and equality. He believed that justice is about combining these two values. He does so by deploying an old idea in a new way: the idea of a social contract. The original position is a central feature of Rawls’s social contract account of justice. It is a hypothetical contract. According to Rawls, justice demands impartiality. In order to strip away all partiality in arriving at principles of justice, we must go behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. Behind the ‘veil of ignorance we know no particular information about ourselves, this way we have no unfair bargaining advantages which ensures a fair outcome. Rawls thinks political justice is about distributing goods. He calls these goods ‘primary’ goods. According to Rawls when we enter the original position,