These interests are particularly relevant to the agreement on principles of justice for the fundamental structure, because primary goods are what these principles distribute. The veil of ignorance is the main condition that limits the rational choice of parties in the initial position. There are five “formal restrictions” that are related to the concept of law that, according to Rawls, the parties must take into account when agreeing. The more a notion of justice fulfills these formal restrictions of law, the more reason the parties have to choose that conception. The formal restrictions of the right are: generality, universality in application, order of contradictory claims, publicity and finality. You know all kinds of general facts about people and societies, including knowledge of relatively undisputed scientific laws and generalizations accepted in the natural and social sciences – economics, psychology, political science, biology and other natural sciences (including applications of the Darwinian theory of evolution, generally accepted by scientists, so controversial among religious fundamentalists 1988, 1988, 1988 You then know the general trends in human behavior and psychological development, neuropsychology and biological evolution, and how economic markets work, including the neoclassical theory of the prices of supply and demand. As we have said below, they also know the circumstances of justice – moderate scarcity and limited altruism – as well as the desire for the “primary social goods” that everyone needs to lead a good life and develop their “moral strengths” and other abilities. But what parties lack is the knowledge of certain facts about their own lives and the lives of other people, as well as the knowledge of historical facts about their society and people, their wealth and resources, their religious institutions, etc. Rawls believes that, given that the parties are required to agree on objective principles offering universal standards of justice, which apply to all societies that are not morally relevant and likely to be prejudicial to their decision with respect to specific and historical facts concerning a person or society. . .

.