The Rawls–Harsanyi Dispute: A Moral Point of View

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99 (1):82-99 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Central to the Rawls–Harsanyi dispute is the question of whether the core modeling device of Rawls' theory of justice, the original position, justifies Rawls' principles of justice, as Rawls suggests, or whether it justifies the average utility principle, as Harsanyi suggests. Many commentators agree with Harsanyi and consider this dispute to be primarily about the correct application of normative decision theory to Rawls' original position. I argue that, if adequately conceived, the Rawls–Harsanyi dispute is not primarily a dispute about the correct application of normative decision theory to Rawls' original position. Instead, Rawls and Harsanyi aim to model different moral ideals, and this difference in their moral assumptions leads them to significantly different conclusions about justice. There is no winner in the Rawls–Harsanyi dispute. Instead, the dispute merely clarifies the moral ideals and their formal representations that need to be assumed in order to justify either Rawls' contractualist principles of justice or the average utility principle. Thus understood, the Rawls–Harsanyi dispute offers a promising starting point for future research that can deepen and enrich our understanding of the demands of justice.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,283

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Fair Equality of Opportunity.Larry A. Alexander - 1985 - Philosophy Research Archives 11:197-208.
The Philosophical Interest of Rawls' Theory of Justice.Edward Alan Papa - 1983 - Dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook
A theory of justice?Philip Pettit - 1974 - Theory and Decision 4 (3-4):311-324.
Rawls’ Avowed Error in Rational Contractarianism.Jung Soon Park - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:325-340.
A Defense of the Maximin Principle in Rawls' Theory of Justice.Robert C. Robinson - 2009 - Humanity and Social Science Journal 4 (2):175-179.
On Kant's and Rawls's Constructivisms.Xiang-lu Zhao - 2008 - Modern Philosophy 4:36-42.
Rawlsian Justice.Fabienne Peter - 2009 - In Paul Anand, Prastanta Pattanaik & Clemens Puppe (eds.), Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press. pp. 433--456.
Rational cooperation.Edward McClennen - 2012 - Synthese 187 (1):65-93.
Liberalism, Political Pluralism, and International Justice.Hahn Hsu - 1998 - Dissertation, The Ohio State University

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-08-12

Downloads
266 (#77,046)

6 months
20 (#132,777)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael Moehler
Virginia Tech

Citations of this work

Rawls’s Self-Defeat: A Formal Analysis.Hun Chung - 2020 - Erkenntnis 85 (5):1169-1197.
One-by-one: moral theory for separate persons.Bastian Steuwer - 2020 - Dissertation, London School of Economics
Rawls on Just Savings and Economic Growth.Marcos Picchio - 2024 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 27 (2):341-370.

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

On What Matters: Two-Volume Set.Derek Parfit - 2011 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.C. L. Ten - 2003 - Mind 112 (447):563-566.
Rawls.Samuel Richard Freeman - 2007 - New York: Routledge.

View all 26 references / Add more references