>
>Hmmm...Wouldn't your argument here also apply to Rawls' attempts to arrive
>at principles of justice through presupposing an original position. I
I agree with your criticism by the way. Does this mean you also reject
Rawl's original position? And to run
>your favorite modus tollens. If it is not wrong for Rawls it can hardly be
>wrong for Habermas.
>
Yes. It does apply, and I do reject Rawls' method of the OP. Rawls was my initial stalking horse in the paper whose arguments I have been adnumbrating, Relativism, Reflective Equilibrium and Justice, Legal Studies 1997. I havea quite different attack on the OP in a more recent paper, published this year, Rights of Inequality, Legal Theory 2001. Kells might like it; it's about the family in part. --jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp