Contractualism and justice (4) Methodological issues

Util defense of impartial, sympathetic observer (ISO) Insures objectivity without rationalism Accounts for motivation better than rationalism Insures impartiality required by justice

Rawls on objectivity Contractualism can provide a 3rd conception of objectivity Common rationality and constraints of OP lead to agreement

Rawls on motivation Contractualism can provide a plausible account of motivation Citizens under JF are motivated by a desire that their conduct be justifiable to others on grounds all can reasonably accept

Rawls on impartiality The ISO method confuses impartiality with impersonality: It evaluates all potential benefits and costs in terms of a single person’s desires Thus only the size of an increment in welfare matters, not who receives that increment The OP insures the impartiality that justice requires: each citizen as such is a source of valid claims, regardless of whether honoring those claims would provide the largest increments in welfare

L against JF on method (1) The “grades” example shows that the OP is the wrong method for determining principles of justice Reply: The grades example concerns a particular transaction within a basic structure; the OP is for design of the basic structure

L against JF on method (2) Reason discloses natural libertarian rights to personal freedom, private property and free exchange The OP ignores this and sees basic institutions as a matter for collective decision Reply: Not everyone can be expected to agree with the metaphysical doctrine of natural law. We must use a method that respects this fact.

Two more objections to JF: L: JF exploits the better off U: JF might cost too much in terms of human welfare Partial reply: the Kantian nature of JF

Kantian elements of JF Appeal to practical reason Respect for persons as ends Ideal of autonomy Priority of right

Respect for persons as ends Principles selected are those to which no one could reasonably object Principles selected embody a concern for satisfaction of everyone’s basic needs Thus the difference principle does not exploit the more advantaged

Ideal of autonomy Parties in the OP are not bound by any given moral values They are not bound by desires associated with any particular conception of the good Citizens live by principles they legislate for themselves

Priority of right Kant: foregone pleasure for the sake of what’s right is not a moral cost Rawls: foregone social welfare for the sake of justice is not a moral cost This responds to the utilitarian criticism

Appeal to practical reason Agreement in the OP is like the CI procedure Both employ a publicity constraint Both employ a veil of ignorance