(Return to main path )

Sometimes people say that all the parties are doing in the Original Position is drawing out the consequences of some widely shared American views on justice. I don't think that's entirely true.

It is true that certain widely shared views on justice (assuming that Rawls has identified them correctly) form limits on what principles the parties in the Original Position can choose. But within those limits, it is their rational prudence that determines what principles they arrive at.

That's why I say the sky's the limit on what the parties can do. The fundamental problem is that they are not limited by any reason based theory of rights or of ethics in general.