(Return to main path )

Frankly, I have never found Rawls' argument based on the Original Position to be very plausible.

There is nothing in Rawls to prevent the parties in the Original Position from making the following sort of argument.

• It would be really nice to have X (excellent medical care, for example).
• I (none of us) in the Original Position knows whether we will be likely to have X in real life.
• It would be prudent to establish a basic right to X for everyone. That way we are sure to have it.
• Therefore, let us agree that everyone has a basic right to X.

Ta Da......... one basic right down, how many more to go? Just tell me what you want.

Is this a reduction to absurdity of the Rawlsean argument? I'm not sure. But it does tell me that John's second question is important. Why should we take seriously what any group would decide in the Original Position?

If nothing else, I think it helps explain why Rawls' basic argument has spread beyond the confines of philosophy departments. Anyone in any field can plug in whatever X he or she wants and quickly establish it as a basic right.