Rawls’s Justification Model for Ethics: What Exactly Justifies the Model?

Dialogue and Universalism 30 (1):171–190 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This is a defense of Rawls against recent criticism, ironically my own, though it is also a critique insofar as it addresses a problem that Rawls never does. As a defense, it is not a retraction of the original charges. As a critique, it is not more of the same op-position. In either capacity, it is not an afterthought. The charges were conceived from the outset with a specific solution in mind, which would have been too distracting to pursue in the same article. This is that solution. It also highlights the problem. The original charges were that Rawls’s decision procedure for ethics does not justify his own moral principles, namely his principles of justice, and that the underlying problem may well keep the decision procedure from justifying any moral principles whatsoever, or at least any normatively useful ones. The underlying problem was, and still is, the model’s inherent universalism, which is built into the decision procedure through design specifications precluding relativism, yet only at the cost of limiting the relevant moral principles to generalities that are already widely accepted, thereby render-ing the procedure at best redundant and very likely vacuous as an ethical justification model. These difficulties are manifested in the work of Rawls as the dogmatism of champi-oning a distinctive conception of justice, a liberal one as he himself calls it, through a justification model that is too universalistic to permit such a bias and possibly also too universalistic to permit any substantive conclusions at all. The solution contemplated here is to position the decision procedure as a dynamic justification model responsive to moral progress, as opposed to a static one indifferent to such progress and equally open to all moral input, thus removing the inconsistency between the universalistic design and any distinctive or controversial principles, including the ones Rawls himself recommends, so long as they are consistent with moral progress.

Similar books and articles

The Rawls–Harsanyi Dispute: A Moral Point of View.Michael Moehler - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99 (1):82-99.
On Rawls' Justification Procedure.Richard A. O'Neil - 1976 - Philosophy Research Archives 2:196-209.
Rawlsian Constructivism In Moral Theory.David O. Brink - 1987 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17 (1):71-90.
On Kant's and Rawls's Constructivisms.Xiang-lu Zhao - 2008 - Modern Philosophy 4:36-42.
Rawls’ Avowed Error in Rational Contractarianism.Jung Soon Park - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:325-340.
Justice and Modern Moral Philosophy. [REVIEW]Richard J. Dougherty - 1993 - Review of Metaphysics 47 (2):384-386.


Added to PP

486 (#37,274)

6 months
121 (#29,149)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Necip Fikri Alican
Washington University in St. Louis (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Philosophy of Right and Wrong.R. M. Hare & Bernard Mayo - 1987 - Philosophical Quarterly 37 (149):451.

Add more references