“Between liberty and equality, there can be but little fraternity.” (Montesquieu, correspondence with Voltaire)* I’d like to follow up on our previous discussion of Libertarianism, as a way of getting clearer on the position I was tentatively putting forward there. Well, it’s still somewhat tentative, but I’ll go for it. Let’s start with some common … Continue reading Liberty and Equality
Tag: Rawls
The Original Original Position?
Check out this passage from William Godwin's Political Justice, from 1793: The two great questions upon which the theory of government depends are: Upon what foundation can political authority with the greatest propriety rest? and, What are the considerations which bind us to political obedience? Having entered at length into the first of these questions, … Continue reading The Original Original Position?
How medicare sets hospital prices
The great Uwe Reinhardt presents a useful primer to the discussion of health care reform that should interest OPers (mindful as they are of the importance of primary social goods). I supervised a remarkably thoughtful (and empirically informed) thesis on Health Care Justice last semester, which brought into sharp relief the ridiculousness of the public … Continue reading How medicare sets hospital prices
On the Idea of Public Justification
Given our preceding discussion of Rawls’ intended scope for his theory of justice as fairness, I thought it might be useful to say a bit more about his idea of public justification. First, a bit of groundwork. Rawls writes at the beginning of Political Liberalism, “Justice as fairness starts from within a certain political tradition … Continue reading On the Idea of Public Justification
On getting into position
OK, I finally got my hands on a copy of Theory of Justice. Sorry for the delay. Our previous discussion of Rawls has been fascinating and has gone in a lot of different directions. I have a better sense now of the rational/reasonable distinction that Rawls is employing, and I now recognize that Rawls doesn't … Continue reading On getting into position
Broome on Rawls: A Puzzle
In Parfit's Reasons and Persons, there is an interesting appendix on "Rawlsian Principles" in which the economist and philosopher John Broome raises an objection to Rawls's Difference Principle (an objection apparently inspired by some opening remarks by Parfit). That principle, recall, states that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are...to … Continue reading Broome on Rawls: A Puzzle
Rawls [7], “Distributive Justice,” (1967)
After a brief segue into the topic of legal obligation, Rawls is back to elaborating on his conception of justice as fairness. In "Distributive Justice" he has three aims: 1) Explain why the just society should not be structured by utilitarian principles; 2) Clarify the Difference Principle--what, exactly, it means to require that inequalities work … Continue reading Rawls [7], “Distributive Justice,” (1967)
Rawls [6], “Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play,” (1964)
Suppose we are legal residents of Arizona, and a law has recently been passed which demands of all legal residents that they report suspected illegal immigrants to the local authorities. (Never mind for the moment how such a law could possibly be enforced.) Suppose furthermore that I think this law is unjust, and, additionally, I … Continue reading Rawls [6], “Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play,” (1964)
Rawls and Rationality
A propos of a recent thread on whether it is irrational to reject Rawls's two principles of justice, I thought I would offer my decidedly uninformed take on the issue. From my summer Rawls reading, I'm inclined (thus far) to conclude that Rawls did not think that one must accept his two principles of justice … Continue reading Rawls and Rationality
Rawls [5], “The Sense of Justice,” (1963)
In this essay Rawls addresses two questions, one raised specifically by his theory of justice and the other a general and much discussed meta-ethical question. The specific question is, "To whom do the principles of justice apply?" or "To whom is justice owed?" The general meta-ethical question is, "What motivates us to act morally--i.e., to … Continue reading Rawls [5], “The Sense of Justice,” (1963)
Original Positions 