John

Rawls

John

Rawls

was

arguably

the

most

important

political

philosopher

of

the

twentieth

century

He

wrote

a

series

of

highly

influential

articles

in

the

and

that

helped

refocus

AngloAmerican

moral

and

political

philosophy

on

substantive

problems

about

what

we

ought

to

do

His

first

book

A

Theory

of

Justice

TJ

revitalized

the

socialcontract

tradition

using

it

to

articulate

and

defend

a

detailed

vision

of

egalitarian

liberalism

In

Political

Liberalism

PL

he

recast

the

role

of

political

philosophy

accommodating

it

to

the

effectively

permanent

reasonable

pluralism

of

religious

philosophical

and

other

comprehensive

doctrines

or

worldviews

that

characterize

modern

societies

He

explains

how

philosophers

can

characterize

public

justification

and

the

legitimate

democratic

use

of

collective

coercive

power

while

accepting

that

pluralism

Although

most

of

this

article

will

be

devoted

to

TJ

the

exposition

of

that

work

will

take

account

of

Political

Liberalism

and

other

later

works

of

Rawls

TJ

sets

out

and

defends

the

principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

Rawls

takes

the

basic

structure

of

society

as

his

subject

matter

and

utilitarianism

as

his

principal

opponent

Part

One

of

TJ

designs

a

socialcontracttype

thought

experiment

the

Original

Position

OP

and

argues

that

parties

in

the

OP

will

prefer

Justice

as

Fairness

to

utilitarianism

and

various

other

views

In

order

to

understand

the

argument

from

the

OP

one

must

pay

special

attention

to

the

motivation

of

the

parties

to

the

OP

which

is

philosophically

stipulated

and

provided

with

a

Kantian

interpretation

Part

Two

of

TJ

checks

the

fit

between

the

principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

and

our

more

concrete

considered

views

about

just

institutions

thereby

helping

move

us

towards

a

reflective

equilibrium

that

supports

those

principles

Part

Three

of

TJ

addresses

the

stability

of

a

society

organized

around

Justice

as

Fairness

arguing

that

there

will

be

an

important

congruence

in

such

a

society

between

peoples

views

about

justice

and

what

they

value

By

the

time

he

wrote

Political

Liberalism

however

Rawls

had

decided

that

an

inconsistency

in

TJ

called

for

recasting

the

argument

for

stability

In

other

ways

the

argument

of

TJ

rested

on

important

simplifications

which

had

the

effect

of

setting

aside

questions

about

international

justice

disability

and

familial

justice

Rawls

turned

to

these

problems

of

extension

as

he

called

them

at

the

end

of

his

career

Table

of

Contents

Biographical

Sketch

John

Bordley

Rawls

was

born

and

schooled

in

Baltimore

Maryland

USA

Although

his

family

was

of

comfortable

means

his

youth

was

twice

marked

by

tragedy

In

two

successive

years

his

two

younger

brothers

contracted

an

infectious

disease

from

himdiphtheria

in

one

case

and

pneumonia

in

the

otherand

died

Rawlss

vivid

sense

of

the

arbitrariness

of

fortune

may

have

stemmed

in

part

from

this

early

experience

His

remaining

older

brother

attended

Princeton

for

undergraduate

studies

and

was

a

great

athlete

Rawls

followed

his

brother

to

Princeton

Although

Rawls

played

baseball

he

was

in

later

life

at

least

excessively

modest

about

his

Rawls

continued

for

his

PhD

studies

at

Princeton

and

came

under

the

influence

of

the

first

of

a

series

of

Wittgensteinean

friends

and

mentors

Norman

Malcolm

From

them

he

learned

to

avoid

entanglement

in

metaphysical

controversies

when

possible

Rawlss

doctoral

dissertation

already

showed

however

that

he

would

not

be

content

to

deconstruct

our

impulse

to

ask

metaphysical

questions

instead

he

devoted

himself

to

constructive

philosophical

tasks

Turning

away

from

the

theninfluential

program

of

attempting

to

analyze

the

meaning

of

the

moral

concepts

he

replaced

it

with

what

wasfor

a

philosophera

more

practically

oriented

task

that

of

characterizing

a

general

Of

equal

significance

to

Rawlss

turn

away

from

conceptual

analysis

and

towards

a

more

practical

conception

of

moral

philosophy

was

his

encounter

during

a

year

as

a

Fulbright

Fellow

in

Oxford

with

exciting

substantive

work

in

legal

and

political

philosophy

especially

that

of

HLA

Hart

and

Isaiah

Berlin

Hart

had

made

progress

in

legal

philosophy

by

connecting

the

idea

of

social

practices

with

the

institutions

of

the

law

Rawlss

second

published

essay

Two

Concepts

of

Rules

uses

a

conception

of

social

practices

influenced

by

Hart

to

explore

a

kind

of

ruleutilitarianism

Compare

TJ

at

In

Isaiah

Berlin

Rawls

met

a

brilliant

historian

of

political

thoughtsomeone

who

by

his

own

account

had

been

driven

away

from

philosophy

by

the

aridity

of

midcentury

conceptual

analysis

Berlin

influentially

traced

the

historical

careers

of

competing

largescale

values

such

as

liberty

which

he

distinguished

as

either

negative

or

positive

and

equality

Not

long

after

his

time

in

Oxford

Rawls

embarked

on

what

was

to

become

a

lifelong

project

of

finding

a

coherent

and

attractive

way

of

combining

freedom

and

equality

into

one

conception

of

political

justice

Cf

PL

at

This

project

first

took

the

form

of

a

series

of

widelydiscussed

articles

about

justice

published

between

and

After

teaching

at

Cornell

and

MIT

Rawls

took

up

a

position

in

the

philosophy

department

at

Harvard

in

There

he

remained

being

named

a

University

Professor

in

Throughout

his

career

he

devoted

considerable

attention

to

his

teaching

In

his

lectures

on

moral

and

political

philosophy

Rawls

focused

meticulously

on

great

philosophers

of

the

pastLocke

Hume

Rousseau

Leibniz

Kant

Hegel

Marx

Mill

and

othersalways

approaching

them

deferentially

and

with

an

eye

to

what

we

could

learn

from

them

Mentor

to

countless

graduate

students

over

the

years

Rawls

inspired

many

who

have

become

influential

interpreters

of

these

philosophers

The

initial

publication

of

A

Theory

of

Justice

in

brought

Rawls

considerable

renown

This

complex

book

which

reveals

Rawlss

thorough

study

of

economics

as

well

as

his

internalization

of

themes

from

the

philosophers

covered

in

his

teaching

has

since

been

translated

into

languages

While

there

are

those

who

would

claim

a

greater

originality

for

Political

Liberalism

TJ

remains

the

cornerstone

of

Rawlss

reputation

Rawlss

Mature

Work

A

Theory

of

Justice

a

The

Basic

Structure

of

Society

The

subject

matter

of

Rawlss

theory

is

societal

practices

and

institutions

Some

social

institutions

can

provoke

envy

and

resentment

Others

can

foster

alienation

and

exploitation

Is

there

a

way

of

organizing

society

that

can

keep

these

problems

within

livable

limits

Can

society

be

organized

around

fair

principles

of

cooperation

in

a

way

the

people

would

stably

accept

Rawlss

original

thought

is

that

equality

or

a

fair

distribution

of

advantages

is

to

be

addressed

as

a

background

matter

by

constitutional

and

legal

provisions

that

structure

social

institutions

While

fair

institutions

will

influence

the

life

chances

of

everyone

in

society

they

will

leave

individuals

free

to

exercise

their

basic

liberties

as

they

see

fit

within

this

fair

set

of

rules

To

carry

out

this

central

idea

Rawls

takes

as

the

subject

matter

of

TJ

the

basic

structure

of

society

defined

as

he

later

put

it

as

the

way

in

which

the

major

social

institutions

fit

together

into

one

system

and

how

they

assign

fundamental

rights

and

duties

and

shape

the

division

of

advantages

that

arises

through

social

cooperation

PL

at

Rawlss

suggestion

is

in

effect

that

we

should

put

all

our

effort

into

seeing

to

it

that

the

rules

of

the

game

are

fair

Once

society

has

been

organized

around

a

set

of

fair

rules

people

can

set

about

freely

playing

the

game

without

interference

b

Utilitarianism

as

the

Principal

Opponent

Rawls

explains

in

the

Preface

to

the

first

edition

of

TJ

that

one

of

the

books

main

aims

is

to

provide

a

workable

and

systematic

moral

conception

to

oppose

utilitarianism

TJ

at

xvii

Utilitarianism

comes

in

various

forms

Classical

utilitarianism

the

nineteenth

century

theory

of

Jeremy

Bentham

and

John

Stuart

Mill

is

the

philosophy

of

the

greatest

good

of

the

greatest

number

The

more

modern

version

is

average

utilitarianism

which

asks

us

not

to

maximize

the

amount

of

good

or

happiness

but

rather

its

average

level

in

society

The

utilitarian

idea

as

Rawls

confronts

it

is

that

society

is

to

be

arranged

so

as

to

maximize

the

total

or

average

aggregate

utility

or

expected

wellbeing

Utilitarianism

historically

dominated

the

landscape

of

moral

philosophy

often

being

refuted

but

always

rising

again

from

the

ashes

Rawlss

view

was

that

until

a

sufficiently

complete

and

systematic

alternative

is

put

on

the

table

to

compete

with

utilitarianism

its

recurrence

will

be

eternal

In

addition

to

developing

that

constructive

alternative

however

Rawls

also

offered

some

highly

influential

criticisms

of

utilitarianism

His

critique

TJ

at

c

The

Original

Position

Recognizing

that

social

institutions

distort

our

views

by

sometimes

generating

envy

resentment

alienation

or

false

consciousness

and

bias

matters

in

their

own

favor

by

indoctrinating

and

habituating

those

who

grow

up

under

them

Rawls

saw

the

need

for

a

justificatory

device

that

would

give

us

critical

distance

from

them

The

original

position

OP

is

his

Archimedean

Point

the

fulcrum

he

uses

to

obtain

critical

leverage

TJ

at

The

OP

is

a

thought

experiment

that

asks

what

principles

of

social

justice

would

be

chosen

by

parties

thoroughly

knowledgeable

about

human

affairs

in

general

but

wholly

deprivedby

the

veil

of

ignoranceof

information

about

the

particular

person

or

persons

they

represent

i

The

Conditions

and

Purpose

of

the

Original

Position

The

OP

as

Rawls

designs

it

selfconsciously

builds

on

the

long

socialcontract

tradition

in

Western

political

philosophy

In

classic

presentations

such

as

John

Lockes

Second

Treatise

of

Civil

Government

the

social

contract

was

sometimes

described

as

if

it

were

an

actual

historical

event

By

contrast

Rawlss

socialcontract

device

like

his

earlier

decision

procedure

is

frankly

and

completely

hypothetical

While

Rawls

is

most

emphatic

about

this

in

his

later

work

for

example

PL

at

it

is

clear

already

in

TJ

He

insists

there

that

it

is

up

to

the

theorist

to

construct

the

socialcontract

thoughtexperiment

in

the

way

that

makes

the

most

sense

given

its

task

of

helping

us

select

principles

of

justice

Especially

because

of

its

frankly

hypothetical

nature

Rawlss

OP

carries

to

a

higher

level

of

abstraction

the

familiar

theory

of

the

social

contract

as

found

say

in

Locke

Rousseau

and

Kant

TJ

at

The

idea

is

to

help

justify

a

set

of

principles

of

social

justice

by

showing

that

they

would

be

selected

in

the

OP

The

OP

is

accordingly

set

up

to

build

in

the

moral

conditions

deemed

necessary

for

the

resulting

choice

to

be

fair

and

to

insulate

the

results

from

the

influence

of

the

extant

social

order

The

veil

of

ignorance

plays

a

crucial

role

in

this

setup

TJ

at

sec

It

assures

that

each

party

to

the

choice

is

equally

or

symmetrically

situated

with

enjoying

greater

power

or

threat

advantage

than

any

other

TJ

at

It

also

isolates

the

parties

choice

from

the

contingenciesthe

sheer

luckunderlying

the

variations

in

peoples

natural

abilities

and

talents

their

social

backgrounds

and

their

particular

societys

historical

circumstances

About

their

society

Rawls

has

the

parties

simply

assume

that

it

is

characterized

by

the

circumstances

of

justice

which

principally

include

a

the

fact

that

material

goods

are

scarce

but

moderately

so

and

b

that

there

is

within

society

a

plurality

of

worldviewsconceptions

of

the

good

moral

religious

and

secular

TJ

at

sec

It

would

be

too

fanciful

to

think

of

the

parties

to

the

OP

as

having

the

capacity

to

invent

principles

The

point

of

the

thought

experiment

rather

is

to

see

which

principles

would

be

chosen

in

a

fair

setup

To

use

the

OP

this

way

we

must

offer

the

parties

a

menu

of

principles

to

choose

from

Rawls

offers

them

various

principles

to

consider

Among

them

are

his

own

principles

to

be

described

below

and

the

two

versions

of

utilitarianism

classical

and

average

The

crux

of

Rawlss

appeal

to

the

OP

is

whether

he

can

show

that

the

parties

will

Would

rational

parties

behind

a

veil

of

ignorance

choose

average

utilitarianism

The

economist

John

Harsanyi

argues

that

they

would

because

it

would

be

rational

for

parties

lacking

any

other

information

to

maximize

their

expectation

of

wellbeing

Harsanyi

Since

they

do

not

know

who

they

will

be

they

will

therefore

want

to

maximize

the

average

level

of

wellbeing

in

society

Given

Rawlss

opposition

to

utilitarianism

it

would

be

ironic

if

Rawlss

thought

experiment

supported

it

Because

Rawlss

OP

differs

from

Harsanyis

choice

situation

in

important

ways

however

its

parties

will

not

prefer

average

utilitarianism

to

Rawlss

competing

principles

The

most

Cf

TJ

at

Rawls

instead

defines

the

parties

as

having

a

determinate

set

of

motivations

ii

The

Motivations

of

the

Parties

to

the

Original

Position

The

parties

in

the

hypothetical

OP

are

to

choose

on

behalf

of

persons

in

society

for

whom

they

are

in

effect

trustees

PL

at

The

veil

of

ignorance

however

prevents

the

parties

from

knowing

anything

particular

about

the

preferences

likes

or

dislikes

commitments

or

aversions

of

those

persons

They

also

know

nothing

particular

about

the

society

for

which

they

are

choosing

On

what

basis

then

can

the

parties

choose

To

ascribe

to

them

a

full

theory

of

the

human

good

would

fly

in

the

face

of

the

facts

of

pluralism

for

such

theories

are

deeply

controversial

Instead

Rawls

suggests

we

should

ascribe

to

them

a

thinner

or

less

controversial

set

of

commitments

At

the

core

of

these

are

what

he

calls

the

primary

goods

rights

liberties

and

opportunities

income

and

wealth

and

the

social

bases

of

selfrespect

To

give

the

parties

a

definite

basis

on

which

to

reason

Rawls

postulates

that

the

parties

normally

prefer

more

TJ

at

This

is

the

only

motivation

that

TJ

ascribes

to

the

parties

In

their

pursuit

of

the

primary

goods

the

parties

are

defined

as

being

mutually

disinterested

each

is

motivated

to

obtain

as

many

primary

goods

as

he

or

she

can

and

does

not

care

if

others

attain

primary

goods

TJ

at

The

parties

are

motivated

neither

by

benevolence

nor

by

envy

or

spite

Many

commentators

think

that

this

assumption

of

the

parties

mutual

disinterest

reflects

an

unattractively

individualistic

view

of

human

nature

but

as

with

the

motivations

ascribed

to

the

parties

the

ascription

of

mutual

disinterest

is

not

intended

to

mirror

human

nature

The

assumption

of

mutual

disinterest

reflects

Rawlss

development

of

and

reaction

against

both

the

sympatheticspectator

tradition

in

ethics

exemplified

by

David

Hume

and

Adam

Smith

and

the

more

recent

idealobserver

theory

The

former

tradition

attempts

to

imagine

the

point

of

view

of

a

fully

benevolent

spectator

of

the

human

scene

who

reacts

impartially

and

sympathetically

to

all

human

travails

and

successes

The

idealobserver

theory

typically

imagines

a

somewhat

more

dispassionate

or

impersonal

but

still

omniscient

observer

of

the

human

scene

Each

of

these

approaches

asks

us

to

imagine

what

such

a

spectator

or

observer

would

morally

approve

Against

these

theories

Rawls

raises

a

number

of

objections

which

can

be

boiled

down

to

this

either

they

involve

neglecting

the

separateness

of

persons

in

roughly

the

same

way

that

utilitarianism

does

when

it

adds

up

everyones

happiness

TJ

at

or

if

they

seek

to

avoid

utilitarian

aggregation

they

will

find

that

benevolence

is

at

sea

as

long

as

its

many

loves

are

in

opposition

in

the

persons

of

its

many

objects

TJ

at

In

other

words

all

difficult

questions

of

human

conflict

will

be

simply

reproduced

within

the

sympathetic

spectators

breast

Rawls

was

determined

to

get

beyond

this

impasse

He

suggests

that

the

OP

should

combine

the

mutualdisinterest

assumption

with

the

veil

of

ignorance

This

combination

he

argues

will

achieve

the

rough

moral

equivalence

of

universal

benevolence

without

either

neglecting

the

separateness

of

persons

or

sacrificing

definiteness

of

results

TJ

at

As

we

will

see

the

definite

positive

motivations

that

Rawls

ascribes

to

the

parties

are

crucial

to

explaining

why

they

will

prefer

his

principles

to

average

utilitarianism

Because

the

parties

motivations

are

essential

to

the

arguments

bearing

on

this

central

philosophical

contest

it

is

important

to

attend

to

Rawlss

rationale

for

giving

this

motivation

to

the

parties

The

primary

goods

are

supposed

to

be

uncontroversially

worth

seeking

albeit

not

for

their

own

sakes

Initially

TJ

presented

the

primary

goods

simply

as

goods

that

normally

have

a

use

whatever

a

persons

plan

of

life

TJ

at

Although

this

claim

seems

quite

modest

philosophers

rebutted

it

by

describing

life

plans

or

worldviews

for

which

one

or

another

of

the

primary

goods

is

not

useful

These

counterexamples

revealed

the

need

for

a

different

rationale

for

the

primary

goods

At

roughly

the

same

time

Rawls

began

to

develop

further

the

Kantian

strand

in

his

view

These

Kantian

ideas

ended

up

providing

a

new

rationale

for

the

primary

goods

iii

Kantian

Influence

and

Interpretation

of

the

Original

Position

Rawls

had

long

admired

Immanuel

Kants

moral

philosophy

making

it

central

to

his

teaching

of

the

subject

See

CP

essays

TJ

aims

to

build

on

Kants

central

ideas

and

to

improve

on

them

in

certain

respects

TJ

at

sec

By

insisting

as

against

utilitarianism

on

the

separateness

of

persons

Rawls

carries

on

Kants

theme

of

respect

for

persons

Kant

held

that

the

true

principles

of

morality

are

not

imposed

on

us

by

our

psyches

or

by

eternal

conceptual

relations

that

hold

true

independently

of

us

rather

Kant

argued

the

moral

law

is

a

law

that

our

reason

gives

to

itself

It

is

in

this

sense

selfchosen

or

autonomous

law

Kants

position

is

not

that

morality

requires

whatever

Ms

Smith

or

Mr

Jones

chooses

to

believe

it

does

Rather

his

claim

is

that

the

rational

or

vernünftig

nature

that

each

person

shares

shapes

a

single

moral

law

valid

for

all

the

categorical

imperative

Rawls

suggests

that

the

OP

well

models

Kants

central

ideas

The

OP

is

set

up

so

that

the

parties

reflect

our

nature

as

reasonable

and

rationalRawlss

dual

way

of

rendering

the

Kantian

adjective

vernünftig

Once

it

is

so

set

up

the

parties

are

to

choose

principles

Their

task

of

choosing

principles

thus

models

the

idea

of

autonomy

In

designing

the

OP

Rawls

also

aimed

to

resolve

what

he

took

to

be

two

crucial

difficulties

with

Kants

moral

theory

the

danger

of

empty

abstractness

early

stressed

by

Hegel

and

the

difficulty

of

assuring

that

the

moral

laws

dictates

adequately

express

as

Kant

thought

they

must

our

nature

as

free

and

equal

reasonable

and

rational

beings

Rawls

addresses

the

issue

of

abstractness

in

many

waysperhaps

most

fundamentally

by

dropping

Kants

aim

of

finding

an

a

priori

basis

for

morality

Although

Rawlss

use

of

the

veil

of

ignorance

keeps

particular

facts

at

a

distance

he

insists

as

against

Kant

that

moral

theory

must

be

free

to

use

contingent

assumptions

and

general

facts

as

it

pleases

TJ

at

Another

feature

that

reduces

the

abstractness

of

Rawlss

view

is

his

focus

on

institutionson

the

basic

structure

of

society

In

this

light

we

can

see

his

institutional

focus

as

carrying

forward

Hegels

insight

that

the

idea

of

human

freedom

can

achieve

an

adequately

concrete

realization

only

by

a

unified

social

structure

of

a

certain

kind

The

OP

also

addresses

the

second

problem

with

Kants

moral

theorythe

problem

of

expression

The

OP

Rawls

suggests

may

be

viewed

as

a

procedural

interpretation

of

Kants

conception

of

autonomy

and

the

categorical

imperative

within

the

framework

of

an

empirical

theory

TJ

at

To

be

autonomous

for

Kant

is

to

act

on

a

law

that

one

gives

oneself

a

law

adequate

to

ones

nature

as

a

free

and

equal

reasonable

and

rational

person

The

parties

to

the

OP

in

selecting

principles

implement

this

idea

of

autonomy

How

they

represent

equality

and

rationality

are

obvious

for

they

are

equally

situated

and

are

rational

by

definition

Reasonableness

enters

the

OP

not

principally

by

the

rationality

of

the

parties

but

by

the

constraints

on

themmost

especially

the

veil

of

ignorance

They

are

also

constrained

in

ways

not

yet

mentioned

and

that

we

shall

not

TJ

at

sec

The

veil

also

expresses

or

models

a

crucial

aspect

of

our

freedom

namely

our

freedom

to

endorse

principles

in

a

way

that

is

not

controlled

by

the

historical

contingencies

of

the

society

into

which

we

are

born

TJ

at

Rawlss

attempt

to

solve

the

problem

of

expression

also

led

him

towards

a

fuller

articulation

of

the

parties

motivations

ascribing

to

them

certain

highestorder

interests

An

intermediate

step

in

this

direction

is

his

characterization

of

our

three

highestorder

powers

the

moral

powers

that

persons

have

as

reasonable

and

rational

beings

The

rational

corresponds

to

Kants

hypothetical

imperative

with

its

directive

to

take

effective

means

to

ones

ends

the

reasonable

corresponds

to

Kants

categorical

imperative

the

moral

law

that

demands

that

we

do

the

right

thing

irrespective

of

what

our

ends

are

To

conceive

of

persons

as

reasonable

and

rational

then

is

to

conceive

of

them

as

having

certain

higherorder

powers

On

the

side

of

the

rational

there

is

first

the

power

to

frame

our

endsour

conception

of

the

goodand

to

pursue

it

by

selecting

effective

means

to

satisfying

them

Second

we

can

also

revise

our

ends

This

Kantian

conception

of

the

powers

of

reasonable

and

rational

persons

directly

supports

Rawlss

later

account

of

the

motivations

of

the

parties

The

parties

are

conceived

as

having

highestorder

interests

that

correspond

directly

to

these

highestorder

powers

Although

the

account

of

the

moral

powers

was

present

in

TJ

it

is

only

in

his

later

works

that

Rawls

uses

this

idea

to

defend

and

elaborate

the

motivation

of

the

parties

in

the

OP

Rawlss

account

of

the

moral

powers

explains

why

it

makes

sense

to

postulate

that

the

parties

are

motivated

to

secure

the

primary

goods

In

various

complicated

ways

in

his

later

work

Rawls

defends

the

primary

goods

as

being

required

for

free

and

equal

citizens

to

promote

and

protect

their

three

moral

powers

This

is

to

cast

the

primary

goods

as

items

objectively

needed

by

moral

persons

occupying

the

role

of

free

and

equal

citizens

While

the

list

of

primary

goods

may

not

be

a

perfect

or

complete

account

of

what

is

needed

to

support

this

aspect

of

moral

personality

Rawls

PL

at

In

addition

to

providing

a

new

rationale

for

the

primary

goods

Rawlss

account

of

the

moral

powers

also

became

in

his

later

work

a

basis

for

elaborating

the

motivations

ascribed

to

the

parties

In

Political

Liberalism

Rawls

describes

the

motivation

as

The

parties

in

the

original

position

have

no

direct

interests

except

an

interest

in

the

person

each

of

them

represents

and

they

assess

principles

of

justice

in

terms

of

primary

goods

In

addition

they

are

concerned

with

securing

for

the

person

they

represent

the

higherorder

interests

we

have

in

developing

and

exercising

our

moral

powers

and

in

securing

the

conditions

under

which

we

can

further

our

determinate

conceptions

of

the

good

whatever

it

is

PL

at

Here

the

motivation

of

the

parties

is

importantly

extended

by

postulating

that

these

hypothetical

beings

care

about

the

moral

powers

of

persons

in

society

and

also

by

extension

about

those

persons

ability

to

pursue

what

they

particularly

care

about

or

are

committed

to

Rawlss

assumptions

about

the

motivations

of

the

parties

involve

frankly

moral

content

and

are

justified

on

openly

moral

grounds

as

he

had

always

avowed

His

aim

remains

nonetheless

to

assemble

in

the

OP

a

series

of

relatively

uncontroversial

relatively

fixed

points

among

our

considered

moral

judgments

and

to

build

an

argument

on

that

basis

for

the

superiority

of

some

principles

of

justice

over

others

d

The

Principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

Justice

as

Fairness

is

Rawlss

name

for

the

set

of

principles

he

defends

in

TJ

He

refers

to

the

two

principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

but

the

second

has

two

parts

These

principles

address

two

different

aspects

of

the

basic

structure

of

society

the

First

Principle

addresses

the

essentials

of

the

constitutional

structure

It

holds

that

society

must

assure

each

citizen

an

equal

claim

to

a

fully

adequate

scheme

of

equal

basic

rights

and

liberties

which

scheme

is

compatible

with

the

same

scheme

for

all

PL

at

The

second

principle

addresses

instead

those

aspects

of

the

basic

structure

that

shape

the

distribution

of

opportunities

offices

income

wealth

and

in

general

social

advantages

The

first

part

of

the

second

principle

holds

that

the

social

structures

that

shape

this

distribution

must

satisfy

the

requirements

of

fair

equality

of

opportunity

The

second

part

of

the

second

principle

is

the

famousor

infamousDifference

Principle

It

holds

that

social

and

economic

inequalities

are

to

be

to

the

greatest

benefit

of

the

least

advantaged

members

of

society

PL

at

Each

of

these

three

centrally

addresses

a

different

set

of

primary

goods

the

First

Principle

concerns

rights

and

liberties

the

principle

of

Fair

Equality

of

Opportunity

concerns

opportunities

and

the

Difference

Principle

primarily

concerns

income

and

wealth

That

the

view

adequately

secures

the

social

basis

of

selfrespect

is

something

that

Rawls

argues

more

holistically

TJ

at

e

The

Argument

from

the

Original

Position

The

argument

that

the

parties

in

the

OP

will

prefer

Justice

as

Fairness

to

utilitarianism

and

to

the

various

other

alternative

principles

with

which

they

are

presented

divides

into

two

parts

There

is

first

the

question

whether

the

parties

will

insist

upon

securing

a

scheme

of

equal

basic

liberties

and

upon

giving

them

top

priority

Secondly

assuming

that

they

will

there

remains

the

question

whether

social

inequalities

should

be

governed

by

Rawlss

second

principle

comprising

Fair

Equality

of

Opportunity

and

the

Difference

Principle

or

else

should

be

addressed

in

a

utilitarian

way

Making

the

latter

choice

and

so

inserting

utilitarianism

TJ

at

Each

of

these

parts

of

the

argument

from

the

OP

is

considerably

aided

by

the

clarified

account

of

the

primary

goods

that

emerges

in

Rawlss

later

work

and

that

has

been

set

out

above

in

the

section

on

the

motivation

of

the

parties

to

the

OP

Regarding

the

first

part

of

the

argument

from

the

OP

the

crucial

point

is

that

the

parties

are

stipulated

to

care

about

rights

and

liberties

They

further

know

as

a

general

fact

about

human

beings

that

the

determinate

persons

on

whose

behalf

they

are

choosing

are

likely

to

have

firmly

and

deeplyheld

religious

philosophical

PL

at

They

also

have

a

higherorder

interest

in

protecting

these

persons

abilities

to

advance

these

conceptions

Accordingly

they

can

not

take

chances

by

permitting

a

lesser

liberty

of

conscience

to

minority

religions

say

on

the

possibility

that

those

they

represent

espouse

a

majority

or

dominant

religion

PL

at

Rawls

admits

that

persons

deeplyheld

views

are

not

always

set

in

stone

but

he

insists

that

not

all

circumstances

in

which

they

may

change

are

morally

acceptable

He

argues

that

protecting

ones

ability

to

exercise

ones

highestorder

power

to

change

ones

mind

about

such

things

requires

an

adequate

scheme

of

basic

liberties

PL

at

In

addition

he

argues

that

securing

the

First

Principle

importantly

serves

the

higherorder

interest

in

an

effective

sense

of

justiceand

does

so

better

than

the

pure

utilitarian

alternativeby

better

promoting

social

stability

mutual

respect

and

social

unity

PL

at

The

second

part

of

the

argument

from

the

OP

takes

the

First

Principle

for

granted

and

addresses

the

matter

of

social

inequalities

Its

sticking

point

has

always

been

the

Difference

Principle

which

strikingly

and

influentially

articulates

a

liberalegalitarian

socioeconomic

position

While

there

are

questions

about

Rawlss

precise

formulation

and

implementation

of

the

principle

of

Fair

Equality

of

Opportunity

it

is

far

less

controversial

both

in

theory

and

in

practice

It

is

the

Difference

Principle

that

would

most

clearly

demand

deep

reforms

in

existing

societies

The

setup

of

the

OP

suggests

the

following

informal

argument

for

the

difference

principle

because

equality

everyone

than

are

the

results

under

rules

guaranteeing

full

equality

This

is

the

kind

of

inequality

that

the

Difference

Principle

allows

and

requires

departures

from

full

equality

that

make

some

better

off

and

no

one

worse

off

While

this

is

the

intuitive

idea

behind

the

Difference

Principle

Rawlss

statement

of

the

principle

is

more

careful

and

precise

Three

main

refinements

are

worth

noting

First

because

the

principle

pertains

to

the

basic

structure

of

society

and

because

the

parties

are

comparing

different

societies

organized

around

different

principles

the

expectations

that

matter

are

not

those

of

particular

people

but

those

of

representative

members

of

broad

social

classes

Second

to

make

his

exposition

a

little

simpler

Rawls

makes

some

technical

assumptions

that

let

him

focus

only

on

the

expectations

of

the

leastwelloff

representative

class

in

a

given

society

These

assumptionsof

TJ

at

Allowed

by

these

simplifying

assumptions

to

focus

only

on

the

least

well

off

representative

persons

the

Difference

Principle

thus

holds

that

social

rules

allowing

for

inequalities

in

income

and

wealth

are

acceptable

just

in

case

those

who

are

least

well

off

under

those

rules

are

better

off

than

the

leastwelloff

representative

persons

under

any

alternative

sets

of

social

rules

This

formulation

already

takes

account

of

the

third

refinement

which

recognizes

that

the

people

who

are

the

worst

off

under

one

set

of

social

arrangements

may

not

be

the

same

people

as

those

who

are

worst

off

under

some

Cf

PL

at

The

Difference

Principle

requires

society

to

look

out

for

the

least

well

off

But

would

the

parties

to

the

OP

prefer

the

Difference

Principle

to

a

utilitarian

principle

of

distribution

Here

Rawlss

interpretation

of

the

OP

matters

It

took

a

while

for

commentators

to

grasp

the

degree

to

which

Rawlss

characterization

of

the

OP

departed

from

the

much

simpler

one

favored

by

Harsanyi

from

the

point

of

view

of

which

Rawlss

argument

for

the

Difference

Principle

appeared

to

be

a

plain

mistake

For

parties

like

Harsanyis

it

would

be

irrational

to

choose

the

Difference

Principle

Harsanyis

parties

lack

any

determinate

TJ

at

With

nothing

but

the

bare

idea

of

rationality

to

guide

them

they

will

naturally

choose

any

principle

that

will

maximize

their

utility

expectation

Since

this

is

what

the

principle

of

Average

Utilitarianism

does

they

will

choose

it

Yet

as

we

have

seen

Rawls

departs

from

Harsanyis

version

of

the

thought

experiment

by

attributing

a

determinate

motivation

to

the

parties

while

denying

that

an

index

of

the

primary

goods

provides

an

interpretation

of

what

the

parties

conceive

to

be

good

Rawls

never

defends

the

primary

goods

as

goods

in

themselves

Rather

he

defends

them

as

versatile

means

In

the

With

this

departure

from

Harsanyi

in

mind

we

may

finally

explain

why

the

parties

in

the

OP

will

prefer

the

principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

including

the

Difference

Principle

to

average

utilitarianism

In

laying

out

the

reasoning

that

favors

the

Difference

Principle

Rawls

argues

that

the

parties

will

have

reason

to

use

the

maximin

rule

The

maximin

rule

is

a

general

rule

for

making

choices

under

conditions

of

uncertainty

It

is

markedly

different

from

the

rule

of

maximizing

expected

value

the

more

averaging

sort

of

rule

that

Harsanyis

parties

employ

The

maximin

rule

directs

one

to

select

that

alternative

where

TJ

at

The

parties

to

Rawlss

OP

are

not

barepersons

but

determinatepersons

TJ

at

They

care

about

the

primary

goods

and

the

highestorder

moral

powers

but

they

also

know

in

effect

that

the

primary

goods

that

they

are

motivated

to

seek

are

not

what

the

persons

they

represent

ultimately

care

about

Accordingly

the

parties

will

give

special

importance

to

protecting

the

persons

they

represent

against

social

allocations

of

primary

goods

that

might

frustrate

those

persons

ability

to

pursue

their

determinate

conceptions

of

the

good

If

the

parties

knew

they

had

in

hand

an

adequate

sketch

of

the

good

they

might

use

that

to

assess

the

gamble

they

face

choosing

in

a

maximizing

anyones

conception

of

the

good

Accordingly

it

is

rational

for

them

to

take

a

cautious

approach

They

must

do

what

they

can

to

assure

to

the

persons

they

represent

have

a

sufficient

supply

of

primary

goods

for

those

persons

to

be

able

to

pursue

whatever

it

is

that

they

do

take

to

be

good

f

Reflective

Equilibrium

Although

the

OP

attempts

to

collect

and

express

a

set

of

crucial

constraints

that

are

appropriate

to

impose

on

the

choice

of

principles

of

justice

Rawls

recognized

from

the

beginning

that

we

could

never

just

hand

over

the

endorsement

of

those

principles

to

this

hypothetical

device

Rather

he

foresaw

the

need

to

work

from

both

ends

pruning

and

adjusting

things

as

we

go

TJ

at

That

is

we

need

to

stop

and

consider

whether

on

reflection

we

can

endorse

the

results

of

the

OP

If

those

results

clash

with

some

of

our

more

concrete

considered

judgments

about

justice

then

we

have

reason

to

think

about

modifying

the

OP

Alternativelyand

this

is

what

Rawls

means

by

working

from

both

endsinstead

of

modifying

the

OP

we

might

decide

that

the

argument

from

the

OP

gives

us

good

reason

to

modify

the

considered

judgments

of

justice

with

which

its

conclusions

clash

Eventually

we

may

hope

that

this

process

reaches

a

reflective

equilibrium

If

it

does

Rawls

wrote

we

shall

find

a

description

of

the

initial

situation

that

matches

our

considered

judgments

duly

pruned

and

adjusted

Ibid

The

reflective

equilibrium

has

been

an

immensely

influential

idea

about

moral

justification

It

is

not

a

full

theory

of

justification

When

it

was

introduced

however

it

suggested

a

different

approach

to

justifying

moral

theories

than

was

being

commonly

pursued

The

idea

of

reflective

equilibrium

takes

two

steps

away

from

the

sort

of

conceptual

analysis

that

was

then

prevalent

First

working

on

the

basis

of

considered

judgments

suggests

that

it

is

not

necessary

to

build

moral

theories

on

necessary

or

a

priori

premises

What

matters

rather

is

whether

the

premises

are

ones

that

we

do

in

fact

accept

TJ

at

Rawls

characterizes

considered

judgments

as

simply

judgments

reached

under

conditions

where

our

sense

of

justice

is

likely

to

operate

without

distortion

TJ

at

Second

the

sort

of

pruning

and

adjusting

that

Rawls

assumes

will

be

involved

in

the

search

for

reflective

equilibrium

implies

that

theories

need

not

aim

for

a

perfect

fit

with

theoryindependent

data

Whereas

the

practitioners

of

conceptual

analysis

had

raised

to

a

fine

art

the

method

of

generating

counterexamples

to

a

general

theory

Rawls

writes

that

objections

by

way

of

counterexample

are

to

be

made

with

care

TJ

at

Checking

a

theorys

fit

with

ones

more

concrete

considered

judgments

is

only

a

waystation

on

the

route

to

reflective

equilibrium

Reaching

it

might

involve

revising

some

of

those

more

concrete

judgments

A

third

novel

idea

about

justification

thus

emerges

from

this

picture

it

involves

arguments

built

in

various

different

directions

at

once

The

resulting

justification

as

Rawls

puts

it

is

a

matter

of

the

mutual

support

of

many

considerations

TJ

at

Eventually

the

hope

is

that

each

person

will

reach

a

reflective

equilibrium

that

coincides

with

every

other

persons

Since

it

is

up

to

each

person

however

to

determine

which

arguments

are

most

compelling

Rawls

stresses

that

the

reader

must

make

up

his

or

her

own

mind

rather

than

trying

to

predict

or

anticipate

what

everyone

else

will

think

TJ

at

g

Just

Institutions

Part

Two

of

TJ

aims

to

show

that

Justice

as

Fairness

fits

our

considered

judgments

on

a

whole

range

of

more

concrete

topics

in

moral

and

political

philosophy

such

as

the

idea

of

the

rule

of

law

the

problem

of

justice

between

generations

and

the

justification

of

civil

disobedience

Consistent

with

the

idea

of

reflective

equilibrium

Rawls

suggests

pruning

and

adjusting

those

judgments

in

a

number

of

places

One

of

the

thorniest

such

issues

that

of

tolerating

the

intolerant

recurs

in

PL

In

addition

to

serving

its

main

purpose

of

facilitating

reflective

equilibrium

on

Justice

as

Fairness

Part

Two

also

offers

a

treasure

trove

of

influential

and

insightful

discussion

of

these

and

other

topics

in

political

philosophy

There

is

hardly

space

here

even

to

summarize

all

the

worthwhile

points

that

Rawls

makes

about

these

topics

A

summary

of

his

controversial

and

influential

discussion

of

the

idea

of

desert

that

is

getting

what

one

deserves

however

will

illustrate

how

he

proceeds

As

we

have

seen

Rawls

was

deeply

aware

of

the

moral

arbitrariness

of

fortune

He

held

that

no

one

deserves

the

social

position

into

which

he

or

she

is

born

or

the

physical

characteristics

with

which

he

or

she

is

endowed

from

birth

He

also

held

that

no

one

deserves

the

character

traits

he

or

she

is

born

with

such

as

his

or

her

capacity

for

hard

work

As

he

wrote

The

natural

distribution

is

neither

just

nor

unjust

nor

is

it

unjust

that

persons

are

born

into

society

at

some

particular

position

These

are

simply

natural

facts

What

is

TJ

at

In

Part

Two

Rawls

sets

out

to

square

this

stance

on

the

moral

arbitrariness

of

fortune

with

our

considered

judgments

about

desert

which

do

hold

that

desert

is

relevant

to

distributive

claims

For

instance

we

tend

to

think

that

people

who

work

harder

deserve

to

be

rewarded

for

their

effort

We

may

also

think

that

the

talented

deserve

to

be

rewarded

for

the

use

of

their

talents

whether

or

not

they

deserved

those

talents

in

the

first

place

With

these

commonsense

precepts

of

justice

Rawls

does

not

disagree

but

he

clarifies

them

by

responding

to

them

dialectically

TJ

at

sec

He

questions

whether

these

commonsense

claims

are

meant

to

stand

independently

of

any

assumptions

about

whether

or

not

the

basic

institutions

of

societyespecially

those

institutions

of

property

law

contract

law

and

taxation

that

in

effect

define

the

property

claims

and

transfer

rules

that

make

up

the

marketplaceare

just

It

is

unreasonable

Rawls

argues

to

say

that

desert

is

a

direct

basis

for

distributional

claims

even

if

the

socioeconomic

system

is

unfair

It

is

much

more

reasonable

to

hold

he

suggests

that

whether

one

deserves

the

compensation

one

can

command

in

the

job

marketplace

for

instance

depends

on

whether

the

basic

social

institutions

are

fair

Are

they

set

up

so

as

to

assure

among

other

things

an

appropriate

relationship

between

effort

and

reward

It

is

this

justice

of

the

basic

structure

that

is

Rawlss

topic

Rawlss

alternative

proposal

is

that

the

commonsense

precepts

about

desert

generally

presuppose

that

the

basic

structure

of

society

is

itself

fair

When

they

are

qualified

in

line

with

this

presupposition

Rawls

supports

them

To

prevent

the

unqualified

and

the

qualified

claims

from

being

confused

with

each

other

however

he

uses

the

term

legitimate

expectations

as

a

term

of

art

to

express

the

claims

of

desert

appropriately

so

qualified

A

crucial

idea

of

Justice

as

Fairness

is

that

fundamental

principles

of

justice

must

be

respected

for

the

rules

of

social

cooperation

to

be

fair

and

that

when

they

are

we

should

See

Robert

Nozick

h

Stability

In

pursuing

his

novel

topic

of

the

justice

of

the

basic

structure

of

society

Rawls

posed

novel

questions

One

set

of

questions

concerned

what

he

calls

the

stability

of

those

societies

whose

institutions

live

up

to

the

requirements

of

a

given

set

of

principles

of

justice

The

stability

of

the

institutions

called

for

by

a

given

set

of

principles

of

justicetheir

ability

to

endure

over

time

and

to

reestablish

themselves

after

temporary

disturbancesis

a

quality

those

principles

must

have

if

they

are

to

serve

their

purposes

TJ

at

Unstable

institutions

would

not

secure

the

liberties

rights

and

opportunities

that

the

parties

care

about

If

any

set

of

institutions

realizing

a

given

set

of

principles

were

inherently

unstable

that

would

suggest

a

need

to

revise

those

principles

Accordingly

Rawls

argues

in

Part

Three

of

TJ

that

institutions

embodying

Justice

as

Fairness

would

be

stable

even

more

stable

than

institutions

embodying

the

utilitarian

principle

In

addressing

the

question

of

stability

Rawls

never

leaves

behind

the

perspective

of

moral

justification

Stability

of

a

kind

might

be

achieved

by

arranging

a

standoff

of

opposing

but

equal

armies

The

results

of

such

a

balance

of

power

are

not

of

interest

to

Rawls

Rather

the

stability

question

he

asks

concerns

whether

in

a

society

that

conforms

to

the

principles

citizens

can

wholeheartedly

accept

those

principles

Wholeheartedness

will

require

for

instance

that

the

reasons

on

the

basis

of

which

the

citizens

accept

the

principles

are

reasons

affirmed

by

those

very

principles

PL

at

xlii

If

stability

can

be

grounded

on

such

wholeheartedly

moral

reasonsas

opposed

to

ulterior

reasonsthen

it

is

stability

for

the

right

reasons

PL

at

xxxix

In

TJ

the

account

of

stability

for

the

right

reasons

involved

imagining

that

this

wholeheartedness

arose

from

individuals

being

thoroughly

educated

along

Kantian

lines

to

think

of

fairness

in

terms

of

the

principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

Cf

PL

at

lxii

As

we

will

see

he

later

came

to

think

that

this

account

violated

the

assumption

of

pluralism

The

imaginative

exercise

of

assessing

the

comparative

stability

of

different

principles

would

be

useless

and

unfair

if

one

were

to

compare

say

an

enlightened

and

ideallyrun

set

of

institutions

embodying

Justice

as

Fairness

with

the

stupidest

possible

set

of

institutions

compatible

with

the

utilitarian

principle

In

order

to

standardize

the

terms

of

comparison

Rawls

discusses

only

the

wellordered

societies

corresponding

to

each

of

the

rival

sets

of

principles

His

notion

of

a

wellordered

society

is

complex

See

CP

at

The

gist

of

it

is

that

the

relevant

principles

of

justice

are

publicly

accepted

by

everyone

and

that

the

basic

social

institutions

are

publicly

known

or

believed

with

good

reason

to

satisfy

those

principles

Assessing

the

comparative

stability

of

alternative

wellordered

societies

requires

a

complex

imaginative

effort

at

tracing

likely

phenomena

of

social

psychology

As

Rawls

comments

One

conception

of

justice

is

more

stable

than

another

if

the

sense

of

justice

that

it

tends

to

generate

is

stronger

and

more

likely

to

override

disruptive

inclinations

and

if

the

institutions

it

allows

foster

weaker

impulses

and

temptations

to

act

justly

CP

at

In

order

to

address

the

first

of

these

issues

about

the

strength

of

the

sense

of

justice

Chapter

VIII

develops

a

rich

and

somewhat

original

account

of

moral

education

Drawing

upon

empirical

research

in

developmental

psychology

Rawls

describes

the

gradual

development

of

individuals

senses

of

justice

as

involving

three

stages

the

morality

of

authority

which

is

fostered

in

families

the

morality

of

association

and

the

morality

of

principles

He

argues

that

each

of

these

stages

of

moral

education

will

work

more

effectively

under

Justice

as

Fairness

than

it

will

under

utilitarianism

TJ

at

chap

He

also

argues

that

a

society

organized

around

the

two

principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

will

be

less

prone

to

the

disruptive

effects

of

envy

than

will

a

utilitarian

society

TJ

at

secs

i

Congruence

As

we

have

seen

the

veil

of

ignorance

disconnects

the

argument

from

the

OP

from

any

given

individuals

full

conception

of

the

good

The

final

question

addressed

by

TJ

attempts

to

reconnect

justice

to

each

individuals

good

not

in

general

but

within

the

wellordered

society

of

Justice

as

Fairness

A

stable

society

is

one

that

generates

attitudes

such

as

are

encapsulated

in

an

effective

sense

of

justice

that

support

the

just

institutions

of

that

society

If

in

the

wellordered

society

having

those

attitudes

is

also

a

good

for

the

persons

who

have

them

then

there

is

a

match

between

justice

and

goodness

that

Rawls

calls

congruence

TJ

at

In

order

to

address

this

question

of

congruence

TJ

develops

an

account

of

the

good

for

individuals

Chapter

VII

of

TJ

in

fact

develops

a

quite

general

theory

of

goodnesscalled

goodness

as

rationalityand

then

applies

it

to

the

special

case

of

the

good

of

an

individual

over

a

complete

life

Rawls

starts

from

the

suggestion

that

A

is

a

good

X

if

and

only

if

A

has

the

properties

to

a

higher

degree

than

the

average

or

standard

X

which

it

is

rational

to

want

in

an

X

given

what

Xs

are

used

for

or

expected

to

do

and

the

like

whichever

rider

is

appropriate

TJ

at

This

idea

developed

in

dialogue

with

the

leading

alternatives

from

the

middle

of

the

century

still

repays

attention

To

work

out

this

suggestion

for

the

case

of

the

good

for

persons

Rawls

influentially

developed

and

deployed

the

notion

of

a

life

plan

A

rational

plan

of

life

for

an

individual

he

argued

is

answerable

to

certain

principles

of

deliberative

rationality

These

Rawls

sets

out

in

a

lowkey

way

that

masks

the

power

and

originality

of

his

formulations

TJ

at

Rawlss

argument

for

congruencethat

having

an

effective

sense

of

justice

built

around

the

principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

will

be

a

good

for

each

individualis

a

complex

and

philosophically

deep

one

It

appeals

to

at

least

four

types

of

intermediate

good

each

of

which

may

be

presumed

to

be

of

value

to

just

about

everyone

i

the

development

and

exercise

of

complex

talents

which

Rawlss

Aristotelian

Principle

presumes

to

be

a

good

for

human

beings

TJ

at

ii

autonomy

iii

community

and

iv

the

unity

of

the

self

Rawlss

argument

for

congruence

is

spread

out

across

many

sections

of

TJ

Some

of

its

main

threads

are

pulled

together

by

Samuel

Freeman

in

his

contribution

to

The

Cambridge

Companion

to

Rawls

Freeman

With

regard

to

autonomy

to

supplement

the

positive

argument

flowing

from

the

Kantian

interpretation

of

the

OP

Rawls

argues

that

the

type

of

objectivity

claimed

for

the

principles

of

Justice

as

Fairness

is

not

at

odds

with

the

idea

of

the

autonomous

establishment

of

principles

TJ

at

sec

He

further

argues

that

Justice

as

Fairness

supports

the

kind

of

tightlyknit

community

he

calls

a

social

union

of

social

unions

marked

by

the

shared

purpose

or

common

aim

of

cooperating

together

to

realize

their

own

and

anothers

nature

in

ways

allowed

by

the

principles

of

justice

TJ

at

If

Rawls

is

right

about

the

congruence

of

goodness

and

justice

these

ways

are

hardly

trivial

Not

long

after

TJ

was

published

it

came

under

attack

by

a

set

of

critics

who

identified

themselves

as

communitarians

see

for

example

MacIntyre

and

Sandel

Ironically

the

communitarian

critique

focused

largely

on

Parts

One

and

Two

of

TJ

giving

short

shrift

to

the

powerful

articulation

of

this

ideal

of

community

in

Part

Three

Finally

regarding

the

unity

of

the

self

Rawls

criticizes

the

Procrustean

sort

of

unity

that

could

come

from

attaching

oneself

to

a

single

dominant

end

He

notes

the

advantages

of

a

conception

of

the

unity

of

the

self

that

hangs

instead

on

the

regulative

status

of

principles

of

justice

TJ

at

secs

The

cumulative

effect

of

these

appeals

to

the

development

of

talent

autonomy

community

and

the

unity

of

the

self

is

to

support

the

claim

of

Justice

as

Fairness

to

congruence

In

a

wellordered

society

corresponding

to

Justice

as

Fairness

Rawls

concludes

an

effective

sense

of

justice

is

a

good

for

the

individual

who

has

it

In

TJ

this

congruence

between

justice

and

goodness

is

the

main

basis

for

concluding

that

individual

citizens

will

wholeheartedly

accept

the

principles

of

justice

as

fairness

Recasting

the

Argument

for

Stability

Political

Liberalism

Rawls

has

the

parties

to

the

OP

assume

that

the

society

for

which

they

are

choosing

principles

is

in

the

circumstances

of

justice

which

include

the

presence

of

a

plurality

of

irreconcilable

moral

religious

and

philosophical

doctrines

But

his

argument

for

the

comparative

stability

and

the

congruence

of

Justice

as

Fairness

imagines

a

wellordered

society

in

which

everyone

is

brought

up

in

ways

deeply

informed

by

the

adherence

by

all

adults

to

the

same

principles

of

justice

Accordingly

his

discussion

of

stability

and

congruence

in

Part

Three

of

TJ

is

at

odds

with

the

assumption

of

pluralism

In

his

second

book

Political

Liberalism

PL

he

set

out

to

rectify

this

serious

problem

PL

at

xvii

PL

clarifies

that

the

only

acceptable

way

to

rectify

the

problem

is

to

modify

the

account

of

stability

and

congruence

because

pluralism

is

no

mere

theoretical

posit

Rather

pluralism

has

been

endemic

among

the

liberal

democracies

since

the

century

wars

of

religion

Moreover

pluralism

is

a

permanent

feature

of

liberal

or

nonrepressive

societies

It

does

not

rest

on

irrationality

On

the

contrary

within

a

wide

range

such

pluralism

is

reasonable

and

will

not

be

erased

by

peoples

attempts

to

cooperate

reasonably

That

is

because

a

series

of

intractable

burdens

of

judgment

all

but

preclude

reasoned

convergence

on

fundamental

and

comprehensive

PL

at

Accordingly

Rawls

takes

it

as

a

fact

that

the

kind

of

uniformity

in

fundamental

moral

and

political

beliefs

that

he

imagined

in

Part

Three

of

TJ

can

be

maintained

only

by

the

oppressive

use

of

state

force

He

calls

this

the

fact

of

oppression

PL

at

Since

he

alsounsurprisinglyholds

that

oppression

is

illegitimate

he

refrains

from

offering

fundamental

and

comprehensive

principles

of

how

to

live

In

this

way

his

insistence

on

the

fact

of

oppression

prompts

a

marked

scaling

back

of

the

traditional

aims

of

political

philosophy

The

seminal

idea

of

PL

is

overlapping

consensus

In

an

overlapping

consensus

each

citizenno

matter

which

of

societys

many

comprehensive

conceptions

he

or

she

endorsesends

up

endorsing

the

same

limited

political

conception

of

justice

each

for

his

or

her

own

reasons

The

principal

role

of

the

overlapping

consensus

is

to

replace

TJs

description

of

wholehearted

acceptance

Unlike

TJs

description

the

overlapping

consensus

conceptually

reconciles

wholehearted

acceptance

with

the

fact

of

reasonable

pluralism

Part

of

this

newer

approach

is

the

distinction

between

comprehensive

conceptions

which

address

all

questions

about

how

to

live

and

political

conceptions

which

address

only

political

questions

This

distinction

has

proven

somewhat

troublesome

The

domain

of

the

political

as

Rawls

calls

it

is

not

completely

distinct

from

morality

In

concerning

himself

only

with

the

political

he

is

not

setting

aside

all

moral

principles

and

turning

instead

to

mere

strategy

or

Realpolitik

On

the

contrary

a

political

conception

is

of

course

a

moral

conception

but

it

is

a

moral

conception

that

concerns

itself

only

with

the

basic

structure

of

society

PL

at

Further

a

political

conception

is

one

that

may

be

developed

in

a

freestanding

way

drawing

only

upon

the

very

great

values

of

the

political

rather

than

being

presented

as

deriving

from

any

more

comprehensive

moral

or

religious

doctrine

PL

at

A

corollary

of

this

approach

is

that

such

a

political

liberalism

is

not

wholly

neutral

about

the

good

PL

at

While

Justice

as

Fairness

is

one

such

political

conception

in

PL

Rawls

makes

a

point

of

stressing

that

it

is

just

one

member

of

the

broader

family

of

views

he

refers

to

as

the

reasonable

liberal

political

conceptions

Armed

with

the

idea

of

an

overlapping

consensus

on

a

reasonable

political

conception

Rawls

could

have

contented

himself

with

describing

the

historical

and

sociological

grounds

for

hoping

that

a

reasonable

overlapping

consensus

on

a

political

liberalism

might

be

reached

Hope

is

indeed

the

leitmotif

of

PL

Eg

PL

But

because

Rawls

never

drops

his

role

as

an

advocate

of

political

liberalism

he

must

go

beyond

such

disinterested

sociological

speculation

He

must

find

and

describe

ways

of

advocating

this

view

that

are

compatible

with

his

full

late

recognition

of

the

fact

of

reasonable

pluralism

This

attempt

is

what

makes

PL

so

rich

difficult

and

interesting

The

difficulty

is

this

to

advocate

Justice

as

Fairness

or

any

other

political

liberalism

as

true

would

be

to

clash

with

many

comprehensive

religious

and

moral

doctrines

including

those

that

simply

deny

that

truth

or

falsity

apply

to

claims

of

political

morality

as

well

as

those

that

insist

that

politicalmoral

truths

derive

only

from

some

divine

revelation

To

preserve

the

possibility

of

an

overlapping

consensus

on

political

liberalism

it

might

be

thought

that

its

defenders

must

deny

that

political

liberalism

is

simply

true

severely

hampering

their

ability

to

defend

it

To

cope

with

this

difficulty

Rawls

pioneered

a

stance

in

political

philosophy

that

mirrored

his

general

personal

modesty

a

stance

of

avoidance

Using

the

method

of

CP

at

The

central

idea

he

writes

is

that

political

liberalism

moves

within

the

category

of

the

political

and

leaves

philosophy

as

it

is

PL

at

Perhaps

defending

political

liberalism

as

the

most

reasonable

political

conception

is

to

defend

it

as

true

but

again

Rawls

neither

asserts

nor

denies

that

this

is

so

Developing

a

compelling

freestanding

presentation

of

political

morality

may

be

possible

if

we

may

draw

upon

a

shared

set

of

relevant

moral

ideas

implicit

in

the

background

culture

of

democratic

societies

PL

at

Foremost

among

such

shared

ideas

is

the

idea

of

fair

cooperation

among

free

and

equal

citizens

Much

of

PL

is

accordingly

devoted

to

recasting

the

earlier

argument

for

Justice

as

Fairness

in

terms

that

are

political

not

metaphysical

Many

of

the

revisions

concern

the

arguments

for

various

features

of

the

OP

Although

these

revisions

occupy

much

of

PL

they

need

not

be

covered

further

here

as

most

of

them

have

been

already

anticipated

in

the

above

exposition

of

TJ

To

have

structured

the

exposition

in

this

way

is

to

have

sided

with

those

who

see

considerable

unity

in

Rawlss

work

for

example

Wenar

One

important

change

however

is

that

PL

goes

to

considerably

further

lengths

to

show

that

the

values

to

which

the

view

appeals

are

political

rather

than

being

tied

up

in

any

particular

comprehensive

doctrine

For

instance

that

citizens

are

thought

of

as

free

is

defended

not

by

general

metaphysical

truths

about

human

nature

but

rather

by

our

widely

shared

political

convictions

On

the

road

to

Damascus

Saul

of

Tarsus

becomes

Paul

the

Apostle

Yet

such

a

conversion

implies

no

change

in

our

public

or

institutional

identity

PL

at

On

the

contrary

our

political

rights

ought

not

to

vary

with

such

changes

To

think

of

political

rights

in

this

way

is

to

think

of

citizens

as

free

in

a

relevant

political

sense

Instead

of

seeing

a

fundamental

unity

to

Rawlss

work

some

commentators

emphasize

what

they

take

to

be

PLs

new

focus

on

political

legitimacy

as

distinct

from

political

justice

for

example

Estlund

and

Dreben

It

is

certainly

true

that

Rawls

prominently

deploys

a

liberal

principle

of

legitimacy

that

was

not

present

in

TJ

This

principle

states

that

Our

exercise

of

political

power

is

proper

and

hence

justifiable

only

when

it

is

exercised

in

accordance

with

a

constitution

the

essentials

of

which

all

citizens

may

reasonably

be

expected

to

endorse

in

the

light

of

principles

and

ideals

acceptable

to

them

as

reasonable

and

rational

PL

at

cf

This

principle

thus

appears

to

connect

Rawlss

view

to

that

of

others

working

in

political

and

democratic

theory

who

lean

on

the

notion

of

reasons

that

all

can

accept

for

example

Gutmann

and

Thompson

Rawls

however

leans

more

heavily

than

most

on

the

notion

of

reasonableness

This

is

apparent

in

a

late

essay

where

he

writes

that

our

exercise

of

political

power

is

proper

only

when

we

reasonably

think

that

other

citizens

might

also

reasonably

accept

those

reasons

on

which

it

is

based

CP

at

These

further

qualifications

hint

at

the

relatively

limited

purpose

for

which

Rawls

appeals

within

PL

to

this

principle

of

legitimacy

The

principle

is

part

of

his

account

of

public

reason

in

pluralist

societies

This

account

answers

the

question

how

can

we

in

political

society

reason

with

one

another

so

as

to

set

priorities

and

make

political

decisions

given

the

fact

of

reasonable

pluralism

and

the

burdens

of

judgment

that

make

it

permanent

Finding

reasons

that

we

reasonably

think

others

might

accept

is

a

crucial

part

of

the

answer

The

demand

that

we

do

so

makes

up

the

core

of

the

duty

of

civility

that

binds

citizens

acting

in

any

official

capacity

Rawlss

limits

on

public

PL

is

similar

to

that

of

Part

Three

of

TJ

what

grounds

do

we

have

for

thinking

that

a

political

liberalism

would

be

stable

In

this

context

Rawlss

duty

of

civility

may

be

seen

as

contributing

his

defense

of

the

following

conditional

claim

if

citizens

of

a

pluralist

society

would

abide

by

such

restraints

of

civility

and

if

a

political

liberalism

were

the

object

of

an

overlapping

consensus

then

that

political

liberalism

would

be

stable

To

this

observation

some

of

the

critics

of

Rawlss

account

of

public

reason

reply

that

accepting

this

kind

of

restraint

on

public

dialogue

would

be

too

high

a

price

to

pay

for

a

stable

liberalism

See

Richardson

Weithman

vol

Yet

in

his

last

essay

on

the

subject

The

Idea

of

Public

Reason

Revisited

in

LP

as

well

as

CP

Rawls

introduced

qualifications

to

his

duty

of

civility

that

have

mollified

some

To

begin

with

he

emphasizes

that

this

stricture

is

not

meant

to

restrict

public

discussion

in

the

background

culture

in

any

way

but

only

to

constrain

certain

official

interactions

He

further

introduces

a

proviso

that

allows

one

to

rely

even

in

official

contexts

on

reasons

dependent

on

one

or

another

comprehensive

doctrine

so

long

as

in

due

course

one

provides

properly

public

reasons

CP

at

Even

this

revised

account

of

civility

remains

highly

debatable

Still

it

should

make

a

difference

to

the

debate

whether

we

consider

the

restriction

only

as

part

of

a

hypothetical

consideration

of

the

stability

of

a

given

wellordered

society

specifically

one

that

has

reached

overlapping

consensus

on

some

political

liberalism

or

rather

as

a

doctrine

about

what

civility

requires

in

our

society

here

and

now

Problems

of

Extension

The

modesty

and

restraint

we

have

noted

in

Rawlss

general

approach

is

also

revealed

in

the

way

he

set

aside

a

number

of

difficult

questions

that

properly

arise

within

his

selfassigned

topic

Complicated

as

his

view

is

he

was

keenly

aware

of

the

many

simplifying

assumptions

made

by

his

argument

We

need

to

be

tolerant

of

simplifications

TJ

at

His

most

prominent

simplifications

are

the

following

two

the

assumption

for

the

time

being

that

society

is

a

closed

system

isolated

from

other

societies

TJ

at

and

that

all

citizens

are

fully

cooperating

members

of

a

society

over

a

complete

life

CP

at

cf

PL

at

These

simplifications

set

aside

questions

about

international

justice

and

about

justice

for

the

disabled

An

additional

simplifying

assumption

implicit

in

the

account

of

moral

development

in

Part

Three

of

TJ

is

that

families

are

just

and

caring

Relaxing

each

of

these

three

simplifying

assumptions

gives

rise

to

important

and

challenging

problems

of

extension

for

a

Rawlsian

view

In

The

Law

of

Peoples

LP

Rawls

relaxes

the

assumption

that

society

is

a

closed

system

that

coincides

with

a

nationstate

Once

this

assumption

is

dropped

the

question

that

comes

to

the

fore

is

upon

what

principles

should

the

foreign

policy

of

a

decent

liberal

regime

be

founded

Rawls

first

looks

at

this

question

from

the

point

of

view

of

ideal

theory

which

supposes

that

all

peoples

enjoy

a

decent

liberaldemocratic

regime

At

this

level

with

reference

to

a

rather

thinlydescribed

global

original

position

Rawls

develops

basic

principles

concerning

nonintervention

respect

for

human

rights

and

assistance

for

countries

lacking

the

conditions

necessary

for

a

decent

LP

In

that

section

Rawls

treats

quite

dismissively

two

earlier

attempts

to

extend

his

theoretical

framework

to

questions

of

international

justice

those

of

Beitz

and

Pogge

Drawing

on

the

ideas

of

TJ

these

philosophers

had

developed

quite

demanding

principles

of

international

distributive

justice

In

LP

Rawls

instead

favors

a

relatively

minimal

duty

of

assistance

with

a

definite

target

and

a

cutoff

point

LP

at

As

to

justice

for

the

disabled

Rawls

never

attempted

an

extension

of

his

theory

He

did

direct

some

brief

remarks

to

the

topic

in

Political

Liberalism

noting

that

the

view

generates

a

salient

distinction

between

those

whose

disabilities

permanently

prevent

them

from

being

able

to

express

their

higherorder

moral

powers

as

fully

cooperating

citizens

and

those

whose

do

not

PL

at

While

Rawls

limited

himself

to

this

observation

Norman

Daniels

work

on

justice

and

health

care

may

be

viewed

as

an

attempt

to

extend

Rawlss

view

in

the

direction

the

observation

indicates

Daniels

Nussbaum

argues

that

Rawlsian

socialcontract

theory

is

a

deeply

flawed

basis

for

addressing

questions

of

justice

for

the

disabled

and

can

not

be

well

extended

to

deal

with

them

Nussbaum

Responding

to

critics

Rawls

did

briefly

address

justice

within

the

family

in

The

Idea

of

Public

Reason

Revisited

CP

at

LP

at

He

writes

that

he

had

thought

that

J

S

Mills

landmark

The

Subjection

of

Women

made

clear

that

a

decent

liberal

conception

of

justice

including

what

I

have

called

Justice

as

Fairness

implied

equal

justice

for

women

as

well

as

men

but

admits

that

he

should

have

been

more

explicit

about

this

CP

at

He

there

affirms

that

the

family

is

part

of

the

basic

structure

and

is

subject

to

being

regulated

by

the

principles

of

political

justice

The

laws

defining

the

rights

of

marriage

divorce

and

the

ownership

and

inheritance

of

property

by

families

and

family

members

are

presumably

all

part

of

the

basic

structure

of

society

as

are

provisions

of

the

criminal

law

protecting

the

basic

rights

of

family

members

not

to

be

abused

In

the

case

of

the

family

as

in

economic

transactions

Rawlss

stance

illustrates

once

more

how

his

focus

on

institutional

justice

structures

his

attempt

to

reconcile

freedom

and

equality

Egalitarian

concerns

are

addressed

at

the

institutional

level

by

assuring

that

protection

for

the

appropriate

rights

and

liberties

is

assured

by

the

basic

structure

of

society

Freedom

is

preserved

by

allowing

individuals

to

pursue

their

reasonable

conceptions

of

the

good

whatever

they

may

be

within

those

constitutional

constraints

References

and

Further

Reading

Principal

Works

by

John

Rawls

A

Theory

of

Justice

rev

ed

Harvard

University

Press

cited

as

TJ

Political

Liberalism

rev

ed

Columbia

University

Press

cited

as

PL

Collected

Papers

ed

Samuel

Freeman

Harvard

University

Press

cited

as

CP

The

Law

of

Peoples

Harvard

University

Press

cited

as

LP

Lectures

on

the

History

of

Moral

Philosophy

ed

Barbara

Herman

Harvard

University

Press

Justice

as

Fairness

A

Restatement

ed

Erin

Kelly

Harvard

University

Press

Lectures

on

the

History

of

Political

Philosophy

ed

Samuel

Freeman

Harvard

University

Press

Two

useful

gateways

to

the

voluminous

secondary

literature

on

Rawls

are

the

following

Henry

S

Richardson

and

Paul

J

Weithman

eds

The

Philosophy

of

Rawls

vols

Garland

Samuel

Freeman

ed

The

Cambridge

Companion

to

Rawls

Cambridge

University

Press

On

Rawlss

Life

Thomas

Pogge

A

Brief

Sketch

of

Rawlss

Life

in

Richardson

Weithman

eds

Vol

pp

Other

Works

Cited

Beitz

Charles

Political

Theory

and

International

Relations

Princeton

University

Press

Daniels

Norman

Just

Health

Care

Cambridge

University

Press

Dreben

Burton

On

Rawls

and

Political

Liberalism

In

Freeman

Estlund

David

The

Insularity

of

the

Reasonable

Ethics

Gutmann

Amy

and

Dennis

Thompson

Democracy

and

Disagreement

Harvard

University

Press

Harsanyi

John

C

Cardinal

Utility

in

Welfare

Economics

and

in

the

Theory

of

RiskTaking

Journal

of

Political

Economy

MacIntyre

Alasdair

After

Virtue

ed

ed

University

of

Notre

Dame

Press

Nozick

Robert

Anarchy

State

and

Utopia

NY

Basic

Books

Nussbaum

Martha

C

Frontiers

of

Justice

Disability

Nationality

Species

Membership

Harvard

University

Press

Okin

Susan

Justice

Gender

and

the

Family

NY

Basic

Books

Pogge

Thomas

An

Egalitarian

Law

of

Peoples

Philosophy

and

Public

Affairs

Sandel

Michael

Liberalism

and

the

Limits

of

Justice

ed

ed

Cambridge

University

Press

Richardson

Henry

S

Rawlsian

Social

Contract

Theory

and

the

Severely

Disabled

Journal

of

Ethics

Urmson

J

O

On

Grading

Mind

Wenar

Leif

The

Unity

of

Rawlss

Work

Journal

of

Moral

Philosophy

Henry

S

Richardson

Email

richardhgeorgetownedu

Georgetown

University

USA

john rawls
philosopher
theory of justice


Client Login Financial Planning Charles Schwab TD Ameritrade Fidelity Investments eMoney IFA Report Access Except for IFA Reports these client resource links will redirect you outside of the Index Fund Advisors Inc IFA domain into a thirdparty hosted website Neither IFA nor any of its subsidiaries or affiliates make any representations as to the quality or accuracy of the information that is provided IFA is not liable for any direct or indirect technical or systems issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of thirdparty technologies sites information and programs made available through the IFA website

O O B I O O O O O O O B O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O


MacBook Pro 13 Retina Display Early 2015 The March 2015 update of Apples 13 MacBook Pro Retina Display model A1502 features fifthgeneration Intel Core i5 and i7 processors and introduces the Force Touch trackpad ssd upgrade 462 Questions Cornelius Klaus klausalbert Rep 1 Posted 08212017 Options MacBook Pro 13 2015 SSD upgrade using adapter Is it possible to upgrade the 2015 Macbook Pro 13 inch using an adapter The SSD modules with Apples proprietary interface are very very expensive Therefore I would like to buy a SATA or PCIe module size M2 and an adapter to fit it in the Macbook Is that possible If yes any thing I need to consider Answered View the answer I have this problem too Is this a good question Yes No Score 0 Add a comment The AllNew Pro Tech Toolkit The high performance electronics repair kit On Sale Now 1 Answer Filter by Most Helpful Oldest Chosen Solution Dan danj Rep 2922k Self employed contract worker 34 171 736 Posted 08212017 Apple uses a Proprietary PCIe 20 x4 blade SSD The best solution outside of buying a used Apple SSD is to buy the OWC MacBook Pro with Retina Display 13 15 Late 2013 2014 2015 as they are the only 3rd party that makes a replacement That is what I recommend As for using some adapter to host a M2 SSD our testing showed they just dont cut it Was this answer helpful Yes No Score 2 Comments danj Thanks for the reply The Blade SSDs cost 2x to 4x of normal M2 modules in the EU Therefore they are not an option for me What do you mean by they just dont cut it Are they just slower or do they work unreliable or not at all Thanks in advance 08212017 by Cornelius Klaus Sadly all of the above we encountered errors and slowness in our testing I wouldnt trust them OWC is the best choice other than getting an Apple SSD If space is your issue how about getting a Thunderbolt or USB3 external SSD drive Weve been using Samsungs T3 drives Leave your apps on the internal and use the external for your data 08212017 by Dan Apple makes sure that third party upgrades wont work well with the exception of OWC Its in their financial interest The M2 are competitively priced but Apple changes things just enough to insure they wont work thus retaining their monopoly and price gouging 08212017 by mayer Thanks for the replies I appreciate your effort I was hoping there was an option Apple still offers the 2015 as refurbished but only with 128GB SSD and that is not enough for me I was hoping for a budget solution Buying a storage upgrade for nearly the same price as a new Dell XPS notebook is not worth it 08212017 by Cornelius Klaus NewEgg Transcend JetDrive 820 PCIe Gen 3 x2 SSD May 1 by David Simmons Add a comment Add your answer Cornelius Klaus will be eternally grateful Preview my answer Post my answer

B I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O B I I O O B O O O O O O B O O B I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


iPhone 7 Released September 16 2016 Model 1660 1778 Available as GSM or CDMA 32 128 or 256 GB Rose gold gold silver black and jet black sim cared damage 916 Questions Ibrahim Hassan Rep 25 1 Posted 09292018 Options Activate issue with no network works Hello I have iphone 7 A1660 with NO service problem I tryed use ipcc files but carrier still Not Available so I update to IOS 12 and now I stuck with activate issuethere is still no serviceEven with use different sim cared it saying Unable to Activate An update is required to activate your iphone image below I Noted when I eject the tray of sim cared my phone dos not say No SIM card inserted pleas help me Thank you before Ibrahim Answer this question I have this problem too Is this a good question Yes No Score 2 Add a comment 2 Answers Filter by Most Helpful Oldest dvdhan Rep 1 Posted 10142018 Options This is a known issue with the iPhone 7 modem Send in for repair with Apple httpswwwapplecomsupportiphone7n Was this answer helpful Yes No Score 0 Add a comment Akash thegsmsolution Rep 451 3 Posted 12032018 Options I solved that issues by changing BBPMU IC on iPhone 7 and restore via iTunes then my problem solvedThis videos help me to find the solution Hope this works Was this answer helpful Yes No Score 0 Add a comment Add your answer Ibrahim Hassan will be eternally grateful Preview my answer Post my answer

B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Razor Repair Repair guides and support for electric shavers disposable razors and blades and straight razors for both men and women Create a Guide 7 Categories Andis Braun Gillette Panasonic Philips Remington Wahl Replacement Guides MotorCoil Assembly Power Cord Support Questions Tools These are some common tools used to work on this device You might not need every tool for every procedure Additional Information Wikipedia Razor Facial Hair Guide

B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


The Flash December 13 2018 Arrowverses Crisis on Infinite Earths Psycho Pirate Explained December 13 2018 51 Crisis on Infinite Earths How the 2019 Crossover Could Reshape the Arrowverse December 12 2018 137 Crisis on Infinite Earths Confirmed as 2019 Arrowverse Crossover December 12 2018 98 What That Elseworlds Finale Twist Means for the Arrowverse December 10 2018 23 The Best Arrowverse DC References Batman Wonder Woman and More 8 December 10 2018 316 The Flash Elseworlds Part 1 Review December 6 2018 119 How is SPOILER Alive in The Flash ABOUT First Released September 22 2015 Genre ActionAdventure Summary

B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O


Holiday Inn Express Suites Laurel Open Gallery To Laurel Hattiesburg Regional Airport 20 MI 3219 KM Get Directions Find Rooms New Search Manage Reservations Have a question GIVE US A CALL 1 877 834 3613 E X PRESS Start Breakfast The real breakfast of champions The kind thats complimentary and waiting for you every morning Weve got a whole buffet full of offerings ready to help kick start your day E X PRESS ESSENTIALS Were big on the little things Like WiFi coffee and tea and all the inroom conveniences that make you feel right at home even when youre away E X PRESS RECHARGE Power up while you power down Bedside outlets a plush duvet your pick of pillows and a quiet place to settle in means youll get some solid shuteye Explore Our Hotel Laurel MS Hotel Offers a Gracious Welcome Oaklined streets welcome you to our hotel the Holiday Inn Express Hotel Suites Laurel Read More Room Eat Drink Connect Hotel Details 2008 Jefferson St Laurel Mississippi 39440 United States 1 601 4251804 laurelholidayinnexyahoocom Share This Hotel Check In 300 PM Check Out 1100 AM Checkin Age 21 Parking Accessibility Pet Policy Facility Languages Credit Cards All of our hotels use the IHG Green Engage system an innovative online environmental sustainability system that gives our hotels the means to measure and manage their impact on the environment Its our way of making sure were protecting our surroundings for our guests today and tomorrow People are talking Read all reviews Staff and Service 4 5 Room and Comfort 4 3 Value 4 2 Room Cleanliness 4 4 Variety of Breakfast Choices 4 0 Able to Relax 4 3 Relaxed guest I really enjoyed my stay They were remodeling but I still enjoyed my stay December 28 2018 By Relaxed guest Survey Great service and clean rooms Everything was great the only thing is you need more washcloths December 26 2018 By Anonymous Holiday Inn Express Laurel Hotels

B I I O B O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I I O O B O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I I B O


Home Childrens Changing tables nursing LOCKIG Childrens potty green white green 1299 Article Number 60193128 45 17 Review A natural first step when its time to wean off diapers and train your child to use the toilet The removable insert is easy to empty and clean after every proud moment Comfy potty that wont move around Buy online Add to shopping list Check stock at your local store Store Choose Store selection may vary and prices may differ from those online Product information Materials and environment Ratings Antislip material on the bottom The potty wont move easily when your child is using it Made from harmless plastic the same material used in baby bottles disposable diapers and food boxes Easy to empty and clean Good to know Recommended for children 12 months and older Care instructions Wipe clean with a mild soapy solution Product dimensions Length 14 Width 10 Height 11 Length 36 cm Width 27 cm Height 28 cm Designer Monika Mulder Coordinating Products FÖRSIKTIG childrens stool 499 60 TOSSIG toilet seat 799 26 LILLA childrens potty 699 15 LÄTTSAM baby bath 1499 20 Smart functions Time to take the step from diapers to using a potty Its a big step for your child and they may need some extra support A good way to start is to place the potty in the bathroom to stimulate your childs curiosity Then let your child try sitting without a diaper a few times Remember to not rush just adopt the pace of the child and encourage praise and make potty training something that your child thinks is fun Good luck More Changing tables nursing Go to Changing tables nursing LOCKIG Childrens potty green white green 1299

O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O


Specifications for the NextSeq 550 System NextSeq 550 System Sequencing Performance Parameters NextSeq 550 System HighOutput Kit NextSeq 550 System MidOutput Kit Total Time Output Total Time Output 2 150 bp 29 hrs 100120 Gb 2 150 bp 26 hrs 32539 Gb 2 75 bp 18 hrs 5060 Gb 2 75 bp 15 hrs 1625195 Gb 1 75 bp 11 hrs 2530 Gb Install specifications based on Illumina PhiX control library at supported cluster densities between 129 and 165 kmm clusters passing filter Actual performance parameters may vary based on sample type sample quality and clusters passing filter All NextSeq 550 kits are pairedend capable Total time includes cluster generation sequencing and base calling on a NextSeq 550 System enabled with dualsurface scanning Reads Passing Filter NextSeq 550 System HighOutput Kit NextSeq 550 System MidOutput Kit Single Reads Up to 400 Million Up to 130 Million PairedEnd Reads Up to 800 Million Up to 260 Million Quality Scores NextSeq 550 System HighOutput Kit NextSeq 550 System MidOutput Kit 75 bases higher than Q30 at 2 150 bp 75 bases higher than Q30 at 2 150 bp 80 bases higher than Q30 at 2 75 bp 80 bases higher than Q30 at 2 75 bp 80 bases higher than Q30 at 1 75 bp A quality score Qscore is a prediction of the probability of an error in base calling The percentage of bases Q30 is averaged across the entire run Estimated Sample Throughput for Key Applications NextSeq 550 System HighOutput Kit NextSeq 550 System MidOutput Kit 1 human whole genome 3 exomes 12 exomes 12 enrichment panels 16 transcriptomes 96 amplicon panels The NextSeq Online Community Join other NextSeq owners in the NextSeq Online Community Collaborate with Illumina moderators and NextSeq owners Discuss best practices troubleshoot and learn about how others are using NextSeq preparation kits pushbutton sequencing and automated data analysis to fuel their research NextSeq 550 System Specification Sheet Fast flexible highthroughput benchtop sequencers enable wholegenome transcriptome and targeted resequencing applications with the accuracy of Illumina SBS technology View Specification Sheet Key Technology Sequencing by Synthesis Technology The NextSeq 550 System harnesses proven Illumina sequencing by synthesis SBS technology to deliver highly accurate data and robust performance for multiple applications SBS uses a reversibleterminator method with fluorescently labeled nucleotides to detect single bases as they are incorporated into growing DNA strands View SBS video Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video 2Channel SBS Technology The NextSeq 550 System leverages 2channel SBS chemistry to offer efficient sequencing and data generation 2channel SBS reduces cycle and data processing times while delivering the same high quality and accuracy that sets Illumina systems apart This innovation makes NGS an affordable solution for use as an everyday tool Read technology spotlight

O O O B I O B I B I B I B I O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O B I O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

nextseq 550
system sequencing
performance parameters


SETUP WIZARD Audio Setup Select a audio device driver and optimize the settings Whats an audio device You may have a soundcard in your computer a chip on your motherboard or it may be an external device connected by USBFireWireBluetooth avoid Bluetooth devices they introduce significant audio delay The audio device is the device hardware that makes the sound you hear from your computer The audio device driver is the software interface between the operating system and the audio device The driver tells the operating system and so FL Studio what inputs outputs and what sample rates the audio device can support For Windows ASIO is very important to achieve the best performance macOS uses Core Audio Builtin Audio or your device name as shown in the list and this will provide the best performance Audio interface driver selection settings Start FL Studio and press the F10 key on your keyboard to open the System Settings Alternatively choose Audio settings from the Options Menu Click the Audio tab shown below in the System Settings window In the Input output section there is a dropdown menu with a list of audio drivers installed on your system If you have more than one audio device then you can use the Input output menu to swap between them only one audio device driver can be used at a time see the Win ASIO4ALL Mac Aggregate Device sections for a workaround We recommend you select Win FL Studio ASIO Mac Builtin Audio If you have an audio device with a custom supplied ASIOCore Audio driver then use that NOTE On WIndows ASIO drivers are a prerequisite for audio recording Mixer If possible set the sample rate to 44100 Hz alternatively use 48000 Hz click OK to any warnings Make sure Interpolation is set to 24point sinc or lower Leave the switches in the default positions for now CPU If you have a multicore CPU make sure Multithreaded generator processing Multithreaded mixer processing are selected Smart disable should be selected for all CPU types These options should help you squeeze the most performance out of your CPU NOTE Select the best drivers for your audio device Your Output options may be different they depend on your brand of audio device and installed drivers Not all cards have native ASIO driver options so in that case use FL Studio ASIO Choose Win ASIO Mac Builtin Output

O O B I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O