(Something I've been thinking about a lot as I write my thesis on consequentialism, contractualism, and punishment is how a Rawlsian can justify depriving criminals of their basic liberties without using the sorts of justifications that would _contingently_ permit "telishment." Also having trouble seeing how Scanlon's view can avoid similar problems.)
-- Luke
----- Original Message -----
From: andie nachgeborenen
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: biz ethics/slavery/groups/constitutional rights
jks writes:
> You have to be procedurally correct too, and in fast, procedural
correctness trumps [being right].
But doesn't that mean that something that is procedurally correct, but
results in persecution (as in the case of anti-same-sex marriage
amendments) is possible under Rawlsian notions of liberal democracy?
* * * *
What do you want, a guarantee that nothing can go wrong? Rawls calls his approach imperfect procedural justice -- because we know that the outcomes will not always be ideal. The best you can have in advance is to have fair procedures for resolving disagreements about important things on which people who may otherwise deeply disagree on fundamentals can agree. What alternative do you suggest to fair procedure? Which includes protections for rights, btw, but as we see, in times of stress, these are not ironclad. However, what is? jks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040823/67964864/attachment.htm>