RAWLS’S USE AND INTERPRETATION OF REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM METHODOLOGY: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRAGMATIC USEFULNESS OF CRITICAL THEORY.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71105/Keywords:
Reflective equilibrium, methodology, justice, global justice, consensusAbstract
In his theories of local and international justice, John Rawls uses reflective equilibrium as his contract methodology. Rawls’s use and interpretation of reflective equilibrium methodology, however, raises some fundamental questions, particularly, what can be regarded as the potential of the methodology to achieve the outcome that Rawls purports; or whether Rawls has one theory of justice which he tries to extend to international justice; or whether he has two theories of justice, one at home another abroad. In this paper; I discuss these contentions on the use and interpretation of reflective equilibrium methodology in Rawls theories of local and international justice and argue that Rawls has overemphasized the potential of this methodology as a collective deliberative tool to pursue consensus. Hence, Rawls cannot be claimed to have one theory of justice which he extend to international justice, but two distinct theories of justice one at home another abroad. Hence, under Rawls’s interpretation of the methodology, its effectiveness should be judged on basis of its capacity to lead to the claimed outcome.
References
Cohen, G.A.Rescuing Justice and Equality, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008
Daniels, N. “Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics”Journal of Philosophy 76:5:256–82; reprinted in Daniels, N., 1996, Justice and Justification:
Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. pp. 21–46.
–––, "Reflective Equilibrium", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/spr
2011/entries/reflective-equilibrium.
–––, Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice, New York: Cambridge University Press,1996.
DePaul, M.RBalance and Refinement: Beyond Coherence Methods of Moral Inquiry, New York: Routledge, 1993.
Hare, R.M., “Rawls's Theory of Justice”, Philosophical Quarterly,1973. 23:144–55; 241–51.
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, 2nd Edition 1999, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1971.
–––, Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Paperback Edition.
–––, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press,1996.
–––,The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Scanlon, T.M., “Rawls on Justification”, in The CambridgeCompanion to Rawls, S. Freeman (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002. pp. 139–167.
Perterson, Bo. “Wide Reflective Equilibrium and the Justification of Moral Theory” in Reflective Equilibrium, Essays in Honor of Robert Heeger. Eds. Wibren Van Der Burg and Theo Van Willingenburg. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 1998. PP: 127- 34.
Pogge, W. Thomas. “An Egalitarian Law of Peoples”. In Philosophy and Public affairs, vol. 23, No 3 (summer, 1994), pp. 195.224. http://www.jstor.org/2265183
Timmons, M., “Fondationalism and the Structure of Ethical Justification”, Ethics, pp 595-609
Thomas, Alan. Value and Context: The Nature of Moral and Political Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.
