Now I think Rawls' lack of a transition theory is a BIG problem for Rawls. I have written about this, basically the line is that if his theory can't motivate us as we are, and he hasn't got a story about how we could get to where it could mptivate us, then it can't provide a standard for critiquing our societya s it is.
In Political Liberalism, Rawls briefly discusses the abolitionists and Dr. King in the context of expalining the notion of a transition, which shows that his heart in in the right place, but I don't think the move can work for him, because he can't appeal to agreement among all rational people, which is one of his criteria for a good theory of justice. Not mine, though.
--jks
<bofftagstumper at yahoo.com> writes:
> jks quotes Ken Hanly on Rawls:
>
> >> 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