(Return to main path )

 It seems to me that Young may be confusing two sorts of impartiality.

• First, taking an impartial point of view in order to discover the best rules to be followed in the social state. Rawls advocates this and tries to do it. That's what the veil of ignorance is all about.
  
• Second, taking an impartial point of view with respect to certain aspects of cases (e.g., the race of the people involved) when applying a rule or judging cases according to the rules that apply.

Whatever they may believe about the first type, I can't imagine that Held and Young reject the later sort of impartiality.