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).
"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:
(iii) social union of social unions.
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
the protection of "harmless speech"
Gitlow v. N.Y. (1925): "spark and tinder" (decided with Abrams v. U.S.)
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?
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?