(Click here to continue on the main path)

Pluralism seems to imply that we can bring some or all of the historical canons of justice into one theory. The advantage is that it allows us to account for more of our strong intuitions about justice. 

But that creates a new problem: How do we connect or coordinate the various canons that have now been brought together?

I think we have already seen some possibilities, and I want to mention some:

• The different canons might be used to limit each other. Perhaps property rights should be limited by considering certain overall consequences and our concern for the good should be limited by property rights.
  
• The different canons might apply to different areas of life or within different social institutions.
  
• The different canons might apply under different circumstances. For example, in the midst of catastrophe, the canon of need might be dominant.
  
• The different canons might apply to different burdens and benefits to be distributed. One canon might be more important if we are discussing medical care. Another might be more important if we are discussing the price of an automobile.
  
• The different canons might stand in a lexical hierarchy. This is what Rawls does with his two principles. It means that one canon cannot be considered until another is satisfied.

My point is that if we are going to talk about pluralism, we have to think about how the different canons of justice are related to each other.