Analyse & Kritik 28 (2):146-157 (2006)

Thomas Schramme
University of Liverpool
In this paper I show that Rawls’s contract apparatus in A Theory of Justice depends on a particular presumption that is in conflict with the goal of conserving environmental resources. He presumes that parties in the original position want as many resources as possible. I challenge Rawls’s approach by introducing a rational alternative to maximising. The strategy of satisficing merely goes for what is good enough. However, it seems that under conditions of scarcity Rawls’s maximising strategy is the only rational alternative. I therefore scrutinise the common account of scarcity. I distinguish between absolute and relative scarcity in order to show that scarcity is influenced by our decisions. If we would not accept the claim to as much as possible without further legitimisation, like Rawls does, then scarcity might not be as severe a problem. Finally, I reject Rawls’s proposed solution for dealing with problems of sustainability, namely his idea of the just savings principle. I conclude that Rawlsian Justice as Fairness is bad for the environment
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1515/auk-2006-0202
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,436
External links

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

Justice and Future Generations.D. Clayton Hubin - 1976 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (1):70-83.
Just Savings and the Difference Principle.Steven Wall - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 116 (1):79-102.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Mikro-Zertifikate: Für Gerechtigkeit unter Luftverschmutzern.Olaf L. Müller - 2009 - Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 95 (2):167-198.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Limits of Rawlsian Justice.Roberto Alejandro - 1998 - Johns Hopkins University Press.
A Rawlsian Perspective on Justice for the Disabled.Adam Cureton - 2008 - Essays in Philosophy 9 (1):55-76.
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.
Rawlsian Resources for Animal Ethics.Ruth Abbey - 2007 - Ethics and the Environment 12 (1):1-22.
Against Sen Against Rawls On Justice.Evan Riley - 2011 - Indian Journal of Human Development 5 (1):211-221.
First Steps Toward a Nonideal Theory of Justice.Marcus Arvan - 2014 - Ethics and Global Politics 7 (3):95-117.
Liberalism, Political Pluralism, and International Justice.Hahn Hsu - 1998 - Dissertation, The Ohio State University
Religious Belief in a Rawlsian Society.Richard L. Fern - 1987 - Journal of Religious Ethics 15 (1):33 - 58.
Contractualism, Politics, and Morality.Adam Hosein - 2013 - Acta Analytica 28 (4):495-508.


Added to PP index

Total views
20 ( #560,612 of 2,519,865 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #205,232 of 2,519,865 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes