RAWLS'S ORIGINAL
POSITION
The Original Position is an
attempt to model the considerations that determine the principles of justice
for a well-ordered society.
What is a well-ordered
society? A society of
free and equal persons cooperating on fair terms of social cooperation.
What are the two moral
powers?
Why is everyone in the
well-ordered society assumed to have the two moral powers?
What are the informational
constraints of the OP? (What is the Veil
of Ignorance?)
How does the OP model the
two moral powers?
What are the two principles
of justice that Rawls believes would be agreed to in the OP?
RAWLS'S TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
"a.
Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of
equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties
for all.
b. Social and economic inequalities are
to satisfy two conditions. First, they
must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair
equality of opportunity; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of
the least advantaged members of society"(1993, 291).
CONSEQUENTIALISM
AND NON-CONSEQUENTIALISM
A CONSEQUENTIALIST normative theory is one according to which the
rightness/wrongness of an act or the justice/injustice of a law or practice
depends only on some non-moral measure of the (perhaps appropriately
distributed) goodness of the consequences (or on what it is reasonable to
believe about the non-moral goodness of the consequences). Mill's account of autonomy rights is
utilitarian, and thus consequentialist.
An ANTI-CONSEQUENTIALIST normative theory is one according to which the
rightness/wrongness of an act or the justice/injustice of a law or practice
depends not at all on a non-moral measure of the goodness of the consequences
(or on what it is reasonable to believe about the non-moral goodness of the
consequences). Strict libertarianism is
an anti-consequentialist theory.
A NONCONSEQUENTIALIST normative theory is one that is not
consequentialist. It need not be
anti-consequentialist either. Social
contract theories (e.g., Normative Rawls) are nonconsequentialist, but not
anti-consequentialist. For example,
Rawls's Liberty Principle is not a consequentialist principle. The Difference Principle is based on maximin,
which is a consequentialist principle. So
Rawls's theory is a hybrid, which makes it nonconsequentialist.
DESCRIPTIVE/POLITICAL
RAWLS AND NORMATIVE/METAPHYSICAL RAWLS
I. Descriptive/Political Rawls
Political Liberalism is not
a comprehensive doctrine. It is free
standing.
It articulates an
overlapping consensus of reasonable comprehensive views. "Reasonable" has no implication for
truth or falsity. Political liberalism
"does without the concept of truth."(94)
It articulates
"certain fundamental ideas seen as implicit in the public political
culture of a democratic society."(13)
It is a local theory, not universal.
II. Normative/Metaphysical
Rawls
The goal is a universal
theory of justice for the basic structure of society. If the basic structure of a society cannot be
justified from the Original Position behind a Veil of Ignorance, it is
unjust.
All societies have an
obligation to provide what is necessary for the development and full exercise
of the two moral powers over a complete life (293).
RAWLS'S
"Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate
scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of
liberties for all."(291)
"fully
adequate" = fully adequate for the development and full and informed
exercise of the two moral powers.
the equal basic liberties = "freedom of thought and
liberty of conscience; the [fair value of the] political liberties and freedom
of association, as well as the freedoms specified by the liberty and integrity
of the person; and finally, the rights and liberties covered by the rule of
law."(p. 291) One
of the liberties of the person "is the right to hold and to have the
exclusive use of personal property." (p. 298)
From the point of view of the project of
Normative/Metaphysical Rawls, what is the gap in Rawls's OP argument for the
Liberty Principle? Plato
and the Beehive Society.
RAWLS’S ORIGINAL POSITION ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOM OF
CONSCIENCE
(1) From a Determinate
Conception of the Good.
(2) From Rationality (a
capacity for a conception of the good)
(3) From Reasonableness (a
capacity for a sense of justice. Here
there are three sub-arguments:
(i) stability
(ii) self-respect
(iii) social union of social unions.
Circularity Problem
What is included in Rawls's
freedom of conscience?
What about advertising?
RAWLS'S NON-OP ARGUMENT FOR FREEDOM OF POLITICAL
EXPRESSION: THE CASE OF (INTOLERANT)
SUBVERSIVE ADVOCACY
Schenck v.
Debs v.
the protection of "harmless speech"
Gitlow v. N.Y.
(1925): "spark and tinder" (decided with Abrams v. U.S.)
Whitney v.
Dennis v.
Rawls's rule: "constitutional crisis of the requisite
kind"
In Dennis, the
Communists were engaged in intolerant subversive advocacy (=advocating the
forcible overthrow of the government and replacing it with one that would not
respect freedom of expression).
Question: Would a right to intolerant subversive
advocacy be included in the right to freedom of expression agreed to in the
Original Position?
THE FAIR VALUE OF THE POLITICAL LIBERTIES
What are the political
liberties?
Why does Rawls's liberty
principle guarantee the fair value of the political liberties?
Why does it not guarantee the
fair value of the other basic liberties?
How can guaranteeing the fair
value of the political liberties justify limits on political advertising?
Why does Rawls say:
"Buckley and its sequel First National Bank are profoundly
dismaying"(359)?
RAWLS'S PROTECTED SPHERE OF EQUAL BASIC
What is included?
What kinds of speech are
included?
What kinds of speech does
Rawls specifically exclude?
INALIENABILITY
According to Rawls, are the basic liberties inalienable? Why or why not?
NORMATIVE AND POLITICAL RAWLS
Is Rawls working out an ideal
for democratic societies or an ideal for all societies?