Post Your Answer
2 years ago in Political Philosophy By Veena
In political theory, does emphasizing the social and humanitarian aspects of justice conflict with Rawls’s aim for a purely political conception?
 I'm teaching Rawls and a student argued that focusing on social welfare and humanitarianism smuggles in "comprehensive doctrines" (like utilitarianism or certain religious ethics) that his framework seeks to avoid. Rawls wants a freestanding political conception based on public reason. But aren't the "primary goods" and the difference principle inherently humanitarian in their concern for the least advantaged? Is there a tension here, or can social/humanitarian concerns be justified solely within political values like fairness and reciprocity?
All Answers (1 Answers In All)
By Gayatri Answered 1 year ago
This is an astute question. Rawls's conception is resolutely political, not metaphysical or comprehensively humanitarian. The key is that the difference principle and primary goods are justified not by a substantive ethic of care or welfare, but by political values implicit in the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation among free and equal citizens. The concern for the least advantaged stems from reciprocity and fairness, not from a humanitarian "love of mankind." However, a potential tension arises if citizens support these principles only by invoking their comprehensive humanitarian doctrines. Rawls's hope is for an overlapping consensus where various doctrines converge on the political conception for their own reasons. So, emphasizing social outcomes is not a violation if it is framed within the language of political citizenship, not a particular moral or religious vision of human flourishing.
Reply to Gayatri
Related Questions