(Return to main path )

I think Rawls admits that in the Original Position there is no negotiation and compromise in the ordinary sense. In this respect, there may as well be no more than one person. But he may still have a point.

I think what he's trying to say is that we would all come to the same conclusions in the Original Position. We would actually agree to a set of principles. Now, I may not agree with Rawls' principles; but if he's right that we would all agree to some set of principles in the Original Position, then that's important. That gives him a basis on which to make judgments about social institutions. He's found a sort of bedrock to build on.