This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: principles to which they would consent when so situated. It should be noted straightaway that in this interpretation of the contract theory the principles of justice are understood as the outcome of a hypothetical agreement. They are principles which would be agreed to if the situation of the original position were to arise. There is no mention of an actual agreement, nor need such an agreement ever be made. Social arrangements are just or unjust according to whether they accord with the principles for assigning and securing fundamental rights and liberties which would be chosen in the original position. A JUST SOCIETY MUST OPERATE ON THE TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE John Rawls, The Justification of Civil Disobedience, COLLECTED PAPERS BY JOHN RAWLS, 1969, pg 178 I believe that as a consequence of the peculiar nature of the original position there would be an agreement on the following two principles for assigning rights and duties and for regulating distributive shares as these are determined by the fundamental institutions of society: first, each person is to have an equal social and economic inequalities (as defined by the institutional structure or fostered by it) are to be arranged so that they are both to everyone's advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all. In view of the content of these two principles and their application to the main institutions of society, and therefore to the social system as a whole, we may regard them as the two principles of justice. Basic social arrangements are just insofar as they conform to these principles, and we can, if we like, discuss questions of justice directly by reference to them. But a deeper understanding of the justification of civil disobedience requires, I think, a n account of the derivation of these principles provided by the doctrine of the social contract. SLHS Value File Justice (retributive) Bad
Retributivism Uses Persons Not as Ends but as Mere Means Russell L. Christopher; Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Florida State University, College of Law (Spring 2002); Assistant Professor of Law, University of Tulsa, College of Law (Fall 2002); Northwestern University Law Review; Spring, 2002. Perhaps the "primary" n397 or most "fundamental" n398 criticism retributivists level against consequentialist theories of punishment...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 11/20/2013.
- Fall '13