Abstract

Unlike other fields of philosophy, we cannot simply agree to disagree about morality as practiced in politics. At some point, our moral values become policies that those who may not share those values must follow. The way we construct these disagreements and agreements then are vital to the continued functionality of our nation. In this essay, I will examine how John Rawls, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Jeffrey Stout construct the concept of justice and apply their thoughts to the dispute surrounding mountain top removal coal mining in Eastern Kentucky. John Rawls believes in a universally applicable, rationally generated form of justice. MacIntyre believes that concepts like justice cannot be constructed meaningfully using rational means alone as all of these concepts are supported by arational traditions. Finally, Jeffrey Stout sees that while we may never discover a rationally indefeasible definition of justice, we must continue to search, carrying with us the virtues of humility and charity