Justice as Fairness: A Restatement

Do you think the original position works as a philosophical foundation for arriving at a meaning of justice, or is it too hypothetical to be useful in the real world?

Is it possible for a society to unite around the idea of “reasonable pluralism,” or does a society need a more specific moral doctrine, such as religion or nationalism, to sustain public support?

Is it really possible for the public to harbor a shared understanding of reason as the basis for public debate, or is it inevitable that interests will color their perception of what is reasonable?

Is the “difference principle” an acceptable solution to the problem of inequality? Does providing “the best available” outcome for the least advantaged ensure that they have the best chance to improve their condition?

In describing the original position, Rawls requires that it go through a very precise sequence of events and choices to arrive at the conclusion of justice as fairness. Are his regulations reasonable to keep the imaginary conversation on track, or is he interfering in the process so as to secure his desired result?

Do you believe that Rawls has succeeded in reconciling freedom and equality? If so, how? And if not, do you think he privileges freedom or equality?

Do you agree with Rawls that it is possible to develop an “objective” standard of which rights and liberties take priority when they are in conflict? If so, can you provide a list of the most important? If not, is there a “subjective” standard that would still be fair?

Rawls puts forth “property-owning democracy” and “liberal socialism” as equally valid regime types for a just society. Does one strike you as a preferable alternative? Or is there an argument for one of the options that Rawls dismisses?