Justice and Rationality

Some Objections to the Central Argument in Rawls's Theory

Bibliographic Data

ID3249344
AuthorsJames Fishkin (0000-0002-3688-4800, Yale University, corresponding author)
Year1975
Volume69
Issue2
Pages615-629
Publication date1975-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Political Science Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0003-0554 • E-ISSN: 1537-5943
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/1959092
OpenAlexW2213531318
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited8

The argument is made that Rawls's proposed principles of justice would not rationally be chosen in his proposed version of the "original position." First of all, Rawls's own account of the information available in the original position provides no basis for the conclusions about "primary goods" which he believes would imply his proposed principles. Second, even if those conclusions about primary goods were to be accepted, they would not imply the proposed principles (the "general" and the "special" conceptions of justice) because the claims which Rawls cites in support of "maximin" actually imply a different conception. Lastly, an alternative version of the original position is suggested which would avoid these difficulties and which would, in addition, successfully support a maximin conception of justice. This is not meant, however, as a conclusive argument for maximin, but only as an indication that the objections advanced here do not apply to "social contract theory" as such, but only to the particular version of it which Rawls has proposed

Argument (complex analysis · Economic Justice · Economics · Epistemology · Law and economics · Mathematical economics · Minimax · Original position · Political science · Position (finance · Positive economics · Primary goods · Rationality · Sociology · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Religion and Society Interactions · Weber, Simmel, Sociological Theory

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub