So President Lincoln, for instance, could legitimately condemn the evil of slavery using Biblical imagery, since he also condemned slavery in terms of the public values of freedom and equality.
In so far as we are rational and reasonable beings at all, we have developed as members of a society, within its social framework and institutions. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: The public values that citizens must be able to appeal to are the values of a political conception of justice: Many different kinds of reasons and facts are not morally relevant to that kind of decision e.
The agreement that stems from the original position is both hypothetical and ahistorical. Rawls first set out justice as fairness in systematic detail in his book, A Theory of Justice.
Rawls sees an overlapping consensus as the most desirable form of stability in a free society.
Ideal theory makes two types of idealizing assumptions about its subject matter. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. It is unreasonable for citizens to attempt to impose what they see as the whole truth on others—political power must be used in ways that all citizens may reasonably be expected to endorse.
His position is at least in some sense egalitarianwith a provision that inequalities are allowed when they benefit the least advantaged. Each has, that is, what Rawls calls her own comprehensive doctrine.
They represent an ideal of free and equal rational moral persons that Rawls assumes is implicit in our reasoning about justice. He credited Rawls with showing that the widespread claim that "systematic moral and political philosophy are dead" is mistaken, and with providing a "bold and rigorous" account of "the principles to which our public life is committed.
An important feature of the moral point of view is that it is designed to represent something essential to the activity of moral reasoning. Public standards are principles of reasoning and rules of evidence that all citizens could reasonably endorse. PL, According to this principle, political power may only be used in ways that all citizens can reasonably be expected to endorse.
To take an obvious counterexample, there is little if any justice in laws approved from a utilitarian impartial perspective when these laws take into account racially prejudiced preferences which are cultivated by grossly unequal, racially discriminatory and segregated social conditions.
Why does Rawls represent principles of justice as originating in a kind of social contract? No comprehensive doctrine can be accepted by all reasonable citizens, and so no comprehensive doctrine can serve as the basis for the legitimate use of coercive political power.
Borrowed from game theorymaximin stands for maximizing the minimum, i. How is this social contract to be conceived? Thus Locke envisions as legitimate a constitutional monarchy that is in effect a class state, a state wherein a small class of amply propertied males exercise political rights to vote, hold office, exercise political and social influence, and enjoy other important benefits and responsibilities to the exclusion of everyone else.
It is the role of principles of justice to specify and assess the system of rules that constitute these basic institutions, and determine the fair distribution of rights, duties, opportunities, powers and positions of office to be realized within them.
Though each may believe that she knows the truth about the best way to live, none is willing to force other reasonable citizens to live according to her beliefs, even if she belongs to a majority that has the power to enforce those beliefs on everyone.
Unlike Hobbes, Rawls does not claim that an immoral person is irrational, or that morality is necessarily required by rationality.
Being reasonable, even if not required by rationality, is still an independent aspect of practical reason. Rawls argues that the representative parties in the original position would select two principles of justice: PL, —01 There is only one source of fundamental ideas that can serve as a focal point for all reasonable citizens of a liberal society.
Since justification is addressed to others, it proceeds from what is, or can be, held in common; and so we begin from shared fundamental ideas implicit in the public political culture in the hope of developing from them a political conception that can gain free and reasoned agreement in judgment.
Not to do so implies a failure to live up to the consequences of our own moral convictions about justice. They try to do as best as they can for themselves and for those persons and causes that they care for.John Rawls holds that the principles of justice are what free, rational, mutually disinterested persons would choose (in an initial situation of equality) as basic terms of cooperation to regulate principles.
So the original position argument has no independent justifying force; at best it is a. Question 6 5 out of 5 points Mill justified utilitarianism from rival all of which seem to have plausibility but are mutually incompatible.
Question 7 5 out of 5 points According to John Rawls, people in "the original position" choose the principles of 5 out of 5 points The difference principle of Rawls states Answer 99%(79). Rawls' supports these principles of social justice as those that would be selected by rational self interested agents reasoning from what he calls The Original Position.
The Original Position Agents reasoning from the original position are assumed to be rational in the prudential sense. Rawls relies on the maximin rule of choice to argue against the principle of utility.
Since the maximin rule and the difference principle both require maximizing the minimum position, it seems natural to assume that the maximin choice rule leads directly to choice of the difference principle in the original position.
A Theory of Justice is a work of political philosophy and ethics by John Rawls, in which the author attempts to solve the problem of distributive justice (the socially just distribution of goods in a society) by utilising a variant of the familiar device of the social contract.
Rawls, The Difference Principle, and Equality of Opportunity Both the principle of equality and the difference principle say that 2 is better than 1. However, suppose that the choice is not between 1 and 2, but 1 and 3, where 3 is: But why should the contractors in Rawls’ original position.Download