Though the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1999, is the definitive statement of Rawls's view, so much of the extensive literature on Rawls's theory refers to the first edition. This reissue makes the first edition once again available for scholars and serious students of Rawls's work.

The intuitive core of moral individualism is the belief in the supreme moral importance of the individual. The task of the advocate of moral individualism is to provide a coherent explication of what is encompassed within this moral importance—an explication which extends and rationally reinforces the original intuitive core. My view is that there are two distinct, albeit fundamentally complementary, facets within a well-articulated doctrine of moral individualism. These two facets correspond to the common division of ethical theory into the (...) theory of the good and the theory of the right. At the base of moral individualism’s theory of the good is the claim that value is always agent-relative. It is always individuated; it is always value-for this or that particular individual. For each agent, value-for that agent is his ultimate good. Thus, there are as many ultimate goods as there are persons; and what each agent, in the final analysis, has reason to bring about is the fullest or most adequate realization of value-for that agent. The doctrine of the agent-relativity of value privatizes the good. There is, according to this view, no unitary, shared, public, agent-neutral good which constitutes the ultimate good. The good of each individual stands on its own as a separate ultimate good. The good of each can be an ultimate good in its own right, and not merely a component within a single, all-encompassing, public, agent-neutral good, precisely because the good of any given agent is the good-for that particular agent. (shrink)

My goal in this essay is to say something helpful about the philosophical foundations of deontic restraints, i.e., moral restraints on actions that are, roughly speaking, grounded in the wrongful character of the actions themselves and not merely in the disvalue of their results. An account of deontic restraints will be formulated and offered against the backdrop of three related, but broader, contrasts or puzzles within moral theory. The plausibility of this account of deontic restraints rests in part on how (...) well this account resolves the puzzles or illuminates the contrasts which make up this theoretical backdrop. (shrink)

My goal in this essay is to say something helpful about the philosophical foundations of deontic restraints, i.e., moral restraints on actions that are, roughly speaking, grounded in the wrongful character of the actions themselves and not merely in the disvalue of their results. An account of deontic restraints will be formulated and offered against the backdrop of three related, but broader, contrasts or puzzles within moral theory. The plausibility of this account of deontic restraints rests in part on how (...) well this account resolves the puzzles or illuminates the contrasts which make up this theoretical backdrop. (shrink)

From the apathetic reaction to atrocities committed in Vietnam by the United States and its allies, one may conclude that moral restrictions on the conduct of war command almost as little sympathy among the general public as they do among those charged with the formation of U.S. military policy. Even when restrictions on the conduct of warfare are defended, it is usually on legal grounds alone: their moral basis is often poorly understood. I wish to argue that certain restrictions are (...) neither arbitrary nor merely conventional, and that their validity does not depend simply on their usefulness. There is, in other words, a moral basis for the rules of war, even though the conventions now officially in force are far from giving it perfect expression. (shrink)