>> Rawls claims that the natural distribution is
>> neither just or unjust it just is a fact.
>> This completely denies any historical aspect of
>> justice.
and then replies:
> You misunderstand Rawls. He thinks that means that
> the "natural distribution" of whatever (talent,
> wealth, etc.) has no moral claim to be respected
> whatsoever. If things "happen" to be unjust, we have
> to rearrange things so that they are just.
But this raises a question for me: if things "happen" to be unjust, how can we "rearrange" them, outside of an historical context, so that they are just? Does Rawls admit a role for history in the conception of justice or not?
Just wondering, -- Curtiss
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com