David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (1):161-169 (2011)
Rawls’ appealing to free agreement in the original position cannot be understood as the source of real commitment to principles of social justice. According to the contextualistic interpretation, to establish and clarify the reasonableness of one context, one needs to appeal to the reasonableness of some higher-order contexts. Because the two meta-contexts of global basic structure and domestic basic structure can be seen as higher-order or lower-order context relative to each, depending on concrete cases, by excluding the consideration of global situation that must have effects on the realization of domestic justice, justice as fairness is blind both to the global context of domestic justice and to the domestic context of global justice.
|Keywords||Rawls Contextualism Justification Global|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
John Rawls (1971/2005). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
John Rawls (1999). Collected Papers. Harvard University Press.
John Rawls (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press.
John Rawls (1993). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Arash Abizadeh (2007). Cooperation, Pervasive Impact, and Coercion: On the Scope (Not Site) of Distributive Justice. Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (4):318–358.
Jeffrey Bercuson (2012). Do Rawls's Theories of Justice Fit Together? A Reply to Pogge. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (2-3):251-267.
Joseph Heath (2005). Rawls on Global Distributive Justice: A Defence. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (sup1):193-226.
Mark Coeckelbergh (2007). Principles or Imagination? Two Approaches to Global Justice. Journal of Global Ethics 3 (2):203 – 221.
Dong Jin Jang (2008). Rawls and Natural Justice. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 29:31-43.
Leif Wenar (2004). The Unity of Rawls’s Work. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3):265-275.
David A. Reidy (2007). A Just Global Economy: In Defense of Rawls. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 11 (2):193 - 236.
Stefan Rummens (2009). No Justice Without Democracy: A Deliberative Approach to the Global Distribution of Wealth. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 17 (5):657-680.
Dara Salam (2011). Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account,By Gillian Brock. [REVIEW] Public Reaon 3 (1):114-117.
Ian Hunt (2011). How Egalitarian is Rawls's Theory of Justice? Philosophical Papers 39 (2):155-181.
David Hollenbach (1994). Public Reason/Private Religion? A Response to Paul J. Weithman. Journal of Religious Ethics 22 (1):39 - 46.
Chris Roberts (2012). Public Relations and Rawls: An Ill-Fitting Veil to Wear. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 27 (3):163-176.
Added to index2011-02-13
Total downloads14 ( #112,549 of 1,098,670 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #57,338 of 1,098,670 )
How can I increase my downloads?