A frequent criticism of John Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness" is that it is not true to life. This criticism has at least three parts. The first is that the "hypothetical original position of perfect equality " in which Rawls invites us to picture individuals who are discussing and then deciding what principles will subsequently govern their society's basic institutions has never existed and never will. But this is why he calls his version of social contract thinking "hypothetical" and not "historical." The second is more searching. It is that the "veil of ignorance" blinds people to any information specifically about themselves without blocking their understanding of general facts about the universe and what's in it. They do not know what gender, race, abilities, tastes, wealth, or position in society and so forth they are. Again, as the criticism goes in my words, it is as though they are bodiless ghosts. But Rawls is not saying that these people do not have specific identities. His point is exactly opposite. It is that they do have particular identities but that they do not yet know what they are. This is a big difference and it matters. They are not bodiless ghosts but embodied human beings. The third is that these people are selfish. But as Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiment argues, there is a difference between selfish and being self-interested. The difference is that the first overlooks the relational character of human life which makes it impossible in the long run to defraud someone else without defrauding oneself. A selfish person tries in vain to benefit only himself or herself. A self-interested person is concerned about only about his or her own benefits but this requires him or her to consider what happens to those on the other side of the transactions. Greed is not good but self-interest is if one keeps in mind that the self is relational. If I am correct about these three things, the criticism that what Rawls' theory is not true to life misses the mark.