(Click here to continue on the main path)

I think Rawls may have an answer to the question "Why pay attention to what the parties in the Original Position decide?"

For Rawls, the Original Position embodies certain weak assumptions about justice that are widely shared within a particular community. One way to think about the parties (or party?) in the Original Position is that they are working out the implications of those widely shared assumptions. For example, it is a widely shared assumption that race is irrelevant to questions about justice. It would be unjust to treat two cases differently simply because the people in the two cases were of different races. That assumption is built into the Original Position by stipulating that the parties do not know their race.

But if this is the correct interpretation of Rawls' view, then there is a reason why we should pay attention to what the parties in the Original Position decide. The reason is that they are rationally working out the implication of our own beliefs. In short, the principles they choose are implied by our own beliefs.

Dworkin, by the way, goes further than this argument. He believes that there is a "deeper theory" that underlies what Rawls says about the Original Position and reflective equilibrium. Once we understand the deeper theory, Rawls' theory becomes more compelling. Dworkin believes that we should posit an individual right to equal concern and respect that will then support Rawls theory.