David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (1):73-99 (2009)
Because contractarians see justice as mutual advantage, they hold that justice can be rationally grounded only when each can expect to gain from it. John Rawls seems to avoid this feature of contractarianism by fashioning the parties to the contract as Kantian agents whose personhood grounds their claims to justice. But Rawls also endorses the Humean idea that justice applies only if people are equal in ability. It would seem to follow from this idea that dependent persons (such as the disabled) lack claims of justice. It appears, then, that the Kantian and Humean themes in Rawls conflict. I present a reading of Rawls that resolves this tension between the Kantian and Humean themes. The first theme, I argue, allows Rawls to maintain that persons as such are owed justice regardless of their ability to engage in social cooperation. The second theme, I argue, allows him to retain Hume's connection between justice and reciprocity, but confines the reciprocity condition to relations among nondependents. I conclude that Rawls's approach permits him to rebut recent criticisms leveled by disability theorists and others who claim that his theory excludes dependents. Key Words: Rawls • reciprocity • disability • dependency • circumstances of justice.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Christie Hartley (2011). Disability and Justice. Philosophy Compass 6 (2):120-132.
Cynthia A. Stark (2009). Respecting Human Dignity: Contract Versus Capabilities. Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):366-381.
Cynthia A. Stark (2013). Luck, Opportunity and Disability. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 16 (3):383-402.
Klemen Jaklic (2014). Liberal Legitimacy and the Question of Respect. Ratio Juris 27 (3):409-439.
Similar books and articles
Norman Daniels (ed.) (1975). Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on Rawls' a Theory of Justice. Stanford University Press.
Fabienne Peter (2009). Rawlsian Justice. In Paul Anand, Prastanta Pattanaik & Clemens Puppe (eds.), The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press 433--456.
M. Bankovsky (2011). Social Justice: Defending Rawls' Theory of Justice Against Honneth's Objections. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (1):95-118.
Helga Varden (2010). G. A. Cohen's Rescuing Justice and Equality - A Critical Engagement. Social Philosophy Today 26:175-189.
Ian Hunt (2011). How Egalitarian is Rawls's Theory of Justice? Philosophical Papers 39 (2):155-181.
Samuel Freeman (2007). The Burdens of Public Justification: Constructivism, Contractualism, and Publicity. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):5-43.
Hennie Lötter (1999). Rawls, Young, and the Scope of Justice. Theoria 46 (94):90-107.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads39 ( #105,429 of 1,907,057 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #468,221 of 1,907,057 )
How can I increase my downloads?