<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It seems pretty clear that the basic liberties Rawls advocates for all wouldn't allow for the "persecution" of any minority group.  Whether not allowing gays to marry counts as persecution is a tougher question.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(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.)</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Luke</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com href="mailto:andie_nachgeborenen@yahoo.com">andie nachgeborenen</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org href="mailto:lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org">lbo-talk@lbo-talk.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 23, 2004 2:05 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [lbo-talk] Re: biz ethics/slavery/groups/constitutional rights</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <P><BR>jks writes:<BR><BR>> You have to be procedurally correct too, and in fast, procedural<BR>correctness trumps [being right].<BR><BR>But doesn't that mean that something that is procedurally correct, but<BR>results in persecution (as in the case of anti-same-sex marriage<BR>amendments) is possible under Rawlsian notions of liberal democracy?</P> <P><BR>* * * *</P> <P>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</P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <P> <HR SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<BR><A href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/aac/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail/static/ease.html">Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete</A> - You start. We finish. <P> <HR> <P></P>___________________________________<BR>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>