(Return to main path )

It may be true that at some point in the process of building a theory of justice a philosopher must use moral intuition as a guide. But where and how often -- those are open questions.

I think that Rawls would be far better off if he tried to use conceptual analysis more and his moral intuitions less.

Hare, for example, has argued that conceptual analysis leads to the conclusion that our moral judgments are necessarily universalizable, and that this universalizable quality leads to the outlines of a utilitarian theory of morality. I don't know for sure that Hare is correct, but at least he is on more solid ground that Rawls and his intuitions. Rawls should do the same. Use analysis whenever possible to make a logical case, and use his moral intuition sparingly.