天易网

 找回密码
 注册
查看: 2777|回复: 0

Rawls idea of justice as fairness is a political justice theory

[复制链接]
发表于 6/16/2013 10:43:25 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 郭国汀 于 3/23/2015 23:39 编辑

Justice as Fairness is a Political Justice Theory

Guoting Guo
98years ago Yale University professor of law Emeryasked: What is the justice?  Is it theGod’s will or simply a matter of convention among men? does its nature changewith changing times and condition? If immutable, does it change of itself or doman change it ? Is it universal or local, the same everywhere or different invarious location? Is it the same for all men and races of men or does it differaccording to classes and races? Is it single or diverse in its nature? Is theremore than one kind of justice? What is the nature of  justice? Isjustice operation have exception? Do nature, society industry, politics,economy or law have a different criterion? Is it a quality of action or conduct, a disposition or state of mind? Isit a reality, honour, a mere escutcheon? However, From Rawls masterpiece A Theoryof Justice, many questions could not find answer, for justice as fairness is apolitical justice and not general justice. In this paper, I will try tounderstanding Rawls idea of Justice, review his main ideas, and make sure whatis he theory of justice is about.  

Justice can be dividedas General Justice, political, social, judicial, economic, naturaljustice, retributive or compensatory justice,substantive and procedural justice; Social justice is thesubject of politics and economics. Individual justicesubdivides into civil and criminal justice. Civiljustice is justice as between man and man; while criminal justice is justice as between man and the state.[1]Justice in criminal law depend on what the imprisoned person has done, which hedeserves to be punished, or deprived of benefits. A free choice of action isessential to justice, and such freedom will upset any patterned principle ofdistributive justice. [2] Rawlsin his A Theory of Justice did not discuss the general justice, but Focus onpolitical justice,From society as a fair system of cooperation to theidea of a well-ordered society, to the ideaof the basic structure of such a society, tothe idea of the original position, andfinally to the idea of citizens, thoseengaged in cooperation, as free and equal. [3]

Political power and justice. The firstpurpose of government is to establish the justice.The first sentence of the American constitution is “we, the people of American,establish justice”.Any government may through mistake or wilfulness doinjustice to some subjects. Human naturemakes these vested with power to abuse it. Toensure justice, limits various governments powers carefully defined eachadministration officers keep within limits.[4] Withoutconstraint, Political power will rapidly accumulates and becomes unequal; andmaking use of the coercive apparatus of the state and its law, those who gainthe advantage can often assure themselves of a favour position. [5]Thus, political process is an imperfect procedural justice.[6]Political power is always coercive, backed by the government’s monopoly oflegal force; in a democratic regime it is also the power of free and equalcitizens as a corporate body.  Politicalpower should be exercised when constitutional essentials and questions of basicjustice are at stake.[7]Those with greater wealth and position usually control political life and enactlegislation and social policies that advance their interest. [8]political power is always coercive power backed by the state’s machinery forenforcing its laws. In a constitutional regime political power is also thepower of equal citizens as a collective body: [9]the feature of political power in a constitutional regime is that it is thepower of equal citizens as a collective body. [10]Conception of justice must be a political conception, politicalpower, according to the liberal principle of legitimacy, is legitimateonly when it is exercised in accordance with a constitution the essentials ofwhich all citizens, as reasonable and rational, can endorse in the light oftheir common human reason. [11]

Rawls basic idea of justice
Rawls assumes that the sense of justiceis acquired gradually by the younger members of society as they grow up.[12] Hesaid that to some degree at least human nature is such that we acquire a desireto act justly when we have lived under and benefited from justinstitutions.  He believes that aconception of justice is psychologically suited to human inclinations. Rawlsnoted that the desire to act justly is also regulative of a rational plan oflife, and then acting justly is part of our good.[13]Heperceived that By various psychological processes we acquire a desire to dowhat is right and an aversion to doing what is wrong.[14]The rationalist tradition holds that the principles of right and justice springform our nature.[15]Ifwe answered love with hate, or came to dislike those who acted fairly towardus, or were averse to activities the furthered our good, a community would soondissolve. [16]Hebelieves that acting justly is something we want to do as free and equalrational beings. [17]Rawls asserted that a just person is not prepared to do certain things, and soin the face of evil circumstances he may decide to chance death rather than toact unjustly. For the sake of justice a man may lose his life where anotherwould live to a later day, the just man does what all things considered themost wants; in this sense he is not defeated by ill fortune the possibility ofwhich he foresaw. [18] Rawls affirms contractarian as againsta utilitarian account of justice, but wishes to free that contractarianteaching from the metaphysical assumptions on which it was founded in thethought of its greatest exponents.

According to Rawls, the question of justicearises because all sensible people know that they have interest, and thatinterests are conflict with those of others. It is their interest to live inorganized society, to protect themselves in the pursuit of their interestsagainst others who may interfere with such pursuits, to further theirparticular interests through means of the division of labour.[19]
The fundamental idea of Rawls'stheory is a simple and powerful one-the principles of justice are thoseprinciples that free and equal rational persons would agree on for regulatingtheir common association. The conditions of choice in the original positiongive content and precision to this idea; they insure that the choice, and hencethe principles chosen, are fair to all. In this sense, fairness is the rootmoral notion in Rawls's theory. The function of the conception of justicechosen is, more specifically, to assign fundamental rights and duties, andbenefits and burdens, within a society, to determine a proper balance betweencompeting claims to the advantages of social life. A well-ordered society isone governed by a public conception of justice.[20]

Rawls observed that The most fundamental idea in this conception of justice is the idea ofsociety as a fair system of social cooperation over time from one generation tothe next.[21]The idea of citizens as free and equal persons and the idea of a well-orderedsociety, that is, a society effectively regulated by a public conception ofjustice.[22] Rawls furtherpoint out that institutions are just when no arbitrary distinctions are madebetween persons in the assigning of basic rights and duties and when the rulesdetermine a proper balance between competing claims to the advantages of sociallife.[23]Justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a great goodshared by others.[24]Rawls declared social primary good arerights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth. Otherprimary good include health and vigor, intelligence and imagination, are naturegoods; a hypothetical initial arrangement in which all the social primary goodsare equally distributed.[25]He argued that the most important primary good is that of self-respect, which includes a person’s sense ofhis own value, his secure conviction that his conception of his good, his planof life, is worth carrying out. [26]However,in the whole book, Rawls seems did not discuss whatjustice itself is, for he recognizes that ‘I shall leave aside thegeneral conception of justice and examine the special case of the twoprinciples in serial order’.[27]

The idea of theoriginal position and veil of ignorance
Rawls affirms that justice can only be truly understood when it is known asrooted in contract. He believes that trueprinciples of justice depend on a social contract and justice cannot bejustified as coming forth from the universal morality given us in reasonitself. [28]As to the socialcontract, He suggested that in justice as fairness the originalposition of equality corresponds to the state of nature in thetraditional theory of the social contract… no one knows his place in society,his class position or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune in thedistribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, andthe like. Parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their specialpsychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. No one is advantaged ordisadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance orthe contingency of social circumstances. No one is able to design principles tofavor his particular condition; the principles of justice are the result of afair agreement or bargain[29].A fair agreement between free and equal persons can be reached; in the originalposition with the feature of veil of ignorance, the parties are not allowed toknow the social positions or the particular comprehensive doctrines of thepersons they represent. They also do not know persons’ race and ethnic group,sex, or various native endowments such as strength and intelligence, all withinthe normal range. [30]”Theveil of ignorance leads to an agreement on the principle of equal liberty. [31]ThereforeRawls assumedthat in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled,the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to thecalculus of social interests.[32]The original position is set up as a situation that is fair to the parties asfree and equal, and as properly informed and rational. Thus any agreement madeby the parties as citizens’ representatives is fair. The original positionmakes the object of agreement the first principles of justice for the basicstructure, rather than a particular form of government. He recognizedthat theagreement must be regarded as both hypothetic and non-historical.[33]
Rawls central teaching is that the principle of justice is not self-evidence to ourcommon sense; the positing of an original position enables us toformulate them. The original position is an imagined situation in which an individual is askedto choose principles of justice for his societyunder a veil of ignorance, the veil conceals from him his particularcircumstance, and thus eliminates from his choosing those motives ofself-interest which otherwise would corrupt the fairness of his judgement. Wehave interest in choosing the universal principles of our society which wouldbe good for all its members. The principle ofjustice is the basis for the constitution of any just society in any time orplace.[34] For Rawls, human beings are, in theirpublic role, calculators of their interests.The act of thought in the original position might be called disinterested calculation because it is madeoutside any knowledge of particular interests; it provides the first principle of justice because it comes toterms with the basic difficulty of any political thought. Consent is onlypossible when we know that society is organized for the pursuit of individualinterests in general.[35]

Rawls’ Two principles ofjustice
Rawls argues would be chosen in the original position: First Principle: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with a similar libertyfor others. Second Principle: Social andeconomic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: (a) reasonablyexpected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b) attached to positions andoffices open to all.[36]Accordingto Rawls, the first require equality in the assignment of basic rights andduties, while the second holds that social and economic inequalities. Such asinequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result incompensating benefits for everyone and in particular for the least advantagesmembers of society.[37]In pursuit of this principle “greater resources might be spent on the educationof the less rather than the more intelligent” [38].The only ground for denying the equal liberties is to avoid an even greaterinjustice, an even greater loss of liberty. It does not rely on any specialmetaphysical or philosophical doctrine.[39]Itmeans that distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be toeveryone’s advantage, while the position of authority and offices of commandmust be accessible to all. [40]

Rawls passes beyond the bourgeois political common sense of the firstprinciples to progressive common sense. Welfare equalitarianism can be united with the individualist pluralism of the constitution in an advanced technological society. Justice requires the union of equality and liberty,nature does not supply fairly. The arbitrary deficiencies of nature andsociety are to be overcome in history in the name of equality.[41]

Rawls combine a theory of justice withan account of the substance of justice. Histheory of justice is written in abstraction from the facts of war andimperialism, only deals with war around the question of the rights ofindividual to refuse claims of the state.[42]Sensible people can disagree with Rawls aboutthe details of liberties and equalities; but only decent person will agree thatliberty and equality are at the heart of political justice. [43]

John Rawls' masterpiece, A Theory ofJustice, has become the currently dominant account of our sense of justice.It is perhaps the most important work of moral and political philosophy of twentycentury. Traditional social contract theory focuses on an agreement betweenpersons in a state of nature to enter into a society and to establish agovernment that they will be obligated to obey; it is primarily a theory ofpolitical obligation. In Rawls's version of the contract theory, the relevantagreement is on particular moral principles, here principles of justice.

Moralphilosophy becomes on Rawls's view a special part of the theory of rationalchoice or decision.[44]   
Basic liberties. Rawls explain that the basicliberties of citizens are political liberty(theright to vote and to be eligible for public office ) together with freedom ofspeech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom ofthe person along with the right to hold property; and freedom from arbitraryarrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law.[45]Such liberty of conscience is to be limited only when there is a reasonableexpectation that not doing so will damage the public order which the governmentshould maintain. [46]Thus,the limitation of liberty is justified only when it is necessary for libertyitself, to prevent an invasion of freedom that would be still worse[47].He confirms that the first principle is prior to the second. Its covers theconstitutional essentials; for it apply at the stage of the constitutionalconvention; The fair equality of opportunity is prior to the differenceprinciple, which requires not merely that public offices and social positionsbe open in the formal sense, but that all should have a fair chance to attainthem.[48]Regardless of social class of origin, equal education for all regardless offamily income. [49]Forsecond principle apply at the legislative stage. “The distribution of wealthand income, and the hierarchies of authority, must be consistent with both theliberties of equal citizenship and equality of opportunity.”[50]Thepriority of liberty means that a basic liberty can be limited or denied onlyfor the sake of one or more other basic liberties, and never for a greater publicgood understood as a greater net sum of social and economic advantages forsociety as a whole. None of the basic liberties, such as freedom of thought andliberty of conscience, or political liberty and the guarantees of the rule oflaw, is absolute. They may be limited when they conflict with one another. [51]Even political speech when it becomes an incitement to the imminent and lawless use of force is no longer protected as abasic liberty. [52]Incitementsto imminent and lawless use of force, whatever the significance of thespeaker’s overall political views, are too disruptive of democratic politicalprocedures to be permitted by the rules of order of public discussion. So longas the advocacy of revolutionary and even seditious doctrines is fully protected,there is no restriction on the content of speech, but only regulations as totime and place, and the means used to express it.[53]Rawls believes that Aristocratic and caste societies are unjust, because theymake these contingencies the inscriptive basis for belonging to more or lessenclosed and privileged social classes.[54]A caste society divides society into separate biological populations, while anopen society encourages the widest genetic diversity.[55]

What is a well-ordered society
Rawls put it a society iswell-ordered when it is not only designed to advance the good of its membersbut when it is also effectively regulated by a public conception of justice.[56]Rawls observed that a well-ordered society as one designed to advance the goodof its members and effectively regulated by a public conception of justice. [57] The idea of citizens as free and equalpersons and the idea of a well-ordered society, that is, a society effectivelyregulated by a public conception of justice.[58]Rawls further explained that A political society is well-ordered means first, implied by the idea of a public conceptionof justice, which everyone accepts and knows all the others accepts the samepolitical conception of justice; second,implied by the idea of effective regulation by a public conception of justice,society’s main political and social institutions and the way they hang togetheras one system of cooperation, is known and believed to satisfy those principlesof justice; third, citizens have a sense ofjustice. Thus, In a well-ordered society the public conception of justiceprovides a mutually recognized point of view from which citizens can adjudicatetheir claims of political right on their political institutions or against oneanother. [59] awell-ordered society is a society effectively regulated by some public(political) conception of justice. In a well-ordered society effectivelyregulated by a publicly recognized political conception of justice, everyoneaccepts the same principles of justice. An essential feature of a well-orderedsociety is that its public conception of political justice establishes a sharedbasis for citizens to justify to one another their political judgments: eachcooperates, politically and socially, with the rest on terms all can endorse asjust.[60]In a well-ordered society where all citizens’ equal basic rights and libertiesand fair opportunities are secure, the least advantaged are those belonging to theincome class with the lowest expectations.[61]Even in a well-ordered society, life is deeply affected by social, natural, andfortuitous contingencies and by the way the basic structure, by setting upinequalities.[62]Awell-ordered society is not a private society; for citizen have final ends incommon. They do not affirm the same comprehensive doctrine, they do affirm thesame political conception; they share one basic political end, support justinstitutions and give one another justice accordingly.[63]

What is democratic society
Rawls noted that a democratic society is a system of social cooperationis suggested by the fact that from a political point of view, and in thecontext of the public discussion of basic questions of political rights, itscitizens do not regard their social order as a fixed natural order, or as aninstitutional structure justified by religious doctrines or hierarchicalprinciples pressing aristocratic values. Nor do they think a political partymay properly, as a matter of its declared program, work to deny any recognizedclass or group its basic rights and liberties. [64]We view a democratic society as a political society that excludes a confessional or an aristocratic state, not tomention a caste, slave, or a racist one. [65]Weassume the fact of reasonable pluralism to be a permanent condition of ademocratic society. [66]A democratic society as a fair system of social cooperation between citizensregarded as free and equal. [67]thediversity of religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines in modern democraticsocieties is a permanent feature of the public culture of democracy;[68]A shared adherence to one comprehensive doctrine can be maintained only by theoppressive use of sate power, with all its official crimes and the inevitablebrutality and cruelties, followed by the corruption of religion, philosophy,and science; in a democratic regime political power is regarded as the power offree and equal citizens as a collective body.[69]Classical republicanism views that safety of democratic liberties, requires theactive participation of citizens who have the political virtues needed tosustain a constitutional regime. The idea is that unless there is widespreadparticipation in democratic politics by a vigorous and informed citizen bodymoved in good part by a concern for political justice and public good, even thebest-designed political institutions will eventually fall into the hands ofthose who hunger for power and military glory, or pursue narrow class andeconomic interests, to the exclusion of almost everything else. [70]  

Justice as fairness is a Political conception of justice for a well-ordered modern democratic society
Rawls proposed that Justice as fairness is a political conception ofjustice for a democratic society. [71] Justice as fairness is a political conception of justicefor the special case of the basic structure of a modern democratic society.[72]Justice as fairness is a form of political liberalism. [73]Justice as fairness is a political conception of justice: it is designed forthe special case of the basic structure of society and is not intended as acomprehensive moral doctrine. Justice as fairness hopes to put aside longstanding religious and philosophical controversies and to avoid relying on anyparticular comprehensive view. Is uses a different idea, that of publicjustification, and seeks to moderate divisive political conflicts and tospecify the conditions of fair social cooperation between citizens.[74]Justiceas fairness hopes to extend the idea of a fair agreement to the basic structureitself. Justice as fairness is a political not a general conception of justice:it applies to the basic structure and sees these other questions of localjustice and also questions of global justice as calling for separate consideration on their merits.[75]Rawlslimited his inquiry in four points: First,it is not a comprehensive moral doctrine but as a political conception to applyto that structure of political and social institution.[76]Second, it concerns for the most part withthe nature and content of justice for a well-ordered society. Third, it is not discuss the important question ofthe just relations between peoples, not how the extension of justice as fairnessto these relations illustrates the way in which it is suitably universal.[77]Fourth, it is not a comprehensive religious,philosophical, or moral doctrine, nor is it to be regarded as the applicationof such a doctrine to the basic structure of society. We start with theorganizing idea of society as a fair system of cooperation between free andequal persons.[78]In particular, these conditions must situate free and equal persons fairly andmust not permit some to have unfair bargaining advantages over others. Further,threats of force and coercion, deception and fraud, and so on must be ruledout.[79]“to persons according to their threat advantage” or their de facto politicalpower, or wealth, or native endowments is not the basis of political justice.[80]

Rawls divided the justice into three levels: first,local justice principles applying to institutions and associations; second, domestic justice principles applying tothe basic structure of society; and finally,global justice principles applying to international law. Justice as fairnessstarts with domestic justice. [81]Basic structure include: the political constitution with an independentjudiciary, legalize form of property, and the structure of economy, as well asthe family. [82]

Rawls notion of justice as fairness. The human species depends for its progress not on God ornature but on its own freedom, and the direction of that progress is determinedby the fact that we can rationally give ourselves our own moral laws.[83]Theprinciple of equality becomes no longer simply a matter of equality in legalrights, but an equality also of goods and powers to be distributed fairly bythe rational will of the community. The greatness of Kant’s account of justice lies in his assertionthat it is irrational for human beings to make favourable exceptions ofthemselves . Rawls advocatesequality not only of legal rights but of substantive goods, towards which allcommunity ought to strive.[84]

In sum, although Rawlsuse two book to describe A Theory of Justice, Rawls mainly discussed thepolitical justice, through imagine and create a serial ideas, such as society as a fair system of cooperation, a well-ordered society, the basicstructure of such a society, the originalposition, and the idea of citizens,those engaged in cooperation, as free and equal.




Bibliography   
1.
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971
2.
John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement,Harvard University Press 2001
3.
GeorgeP. Grant, English-Speaking Justice, Mount Allison University. 1974
4.
Brock, Dan , Theoryof Justice,40 U. Chi. L. Rev.] (1973).
5.
AndrewC.Mclaughlin, The Foundations of American Constitutionalism Gloucester, Mass.
6.
Du.Cann,Charles Garfield Lott, Miscarriagesof Justice, Frederick Muller Limited.London 1960.
7.
JohnC.H.Wu, Fountain of Justice, Sheedand Ward New York 1955.
8.
Ronald P.Sokol, JusticeAfter Darwin, The Michie Companylaw publishers, Charlettesville, 1975.
9.
GeorgeH.Sabine, A history of Political Theory 3rd George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd. London.1951.
10.
David.D.Raphael,Conceptsof Justice, Clarendon Press,Oxford. 2001.
11.
FrancisNeilson, In Quest of Justice, RobertSchalken bach FoundationNew York 1944
12.
Lucilius A.Emery, Concerning Justice, NewHaven: Yale University Press 1914
13.
Plato, TheRepublic
14.
Plato, The Law, translated by Trevor J.Saunders Penguin Books 1970,
15.
F.A. Hayek, TheConstitution of Liberty, Universityof Chicago Press, 1960.
16.
Thomas W.Porter, Jr. Spirit and the Law ,26 Fordham Urb. L.J.(1998-1999)  
17.
Taylor Franklin, Justice, 10 Brook. L. Rev(1941).
18.
John F. O'Hara ,Justice, Notre DameLawyer A Quarterly Law Review VOL. XII, 1937 NO. 3.




[1]Du.Cann,Charles Garfield Lott, Miscarriagesof Justice, Frederick MullerLimited. London 1960.p.13

[2]David.D.Raphael, Concepts of Justice, ClarendonPress, Oxford. 2001. P.216

[3] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 24-25.

[4]Lucilius A. Emery, Concerning Justice, NewHaven: Yale University Press 1914.p.78

[5] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.226.

[6] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.229.

[7] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 90-91.

[8] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 148.

[9] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 182.

[10] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 185.

[11] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 41.

[12] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, CambridgeHarvard University Press 1971P. 462.

[13] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, CambridgeHarvard University Press 1971P. 456.

[14] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, CambridgeHarvard University Press 1971P. 458.

[15] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, CambridgeHarvard University Press 1971P. 461.

[16] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, CambridgeHarvard University Press 1971P. 495.

[17] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, CambridgeHarvard University Press 1971P. 572.

[18] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, CambridgeHarvard University Press 1971P. 573.

[19] George Parkin Grant, English-Speaking Justice, New Brunswick: Mount Allison University.1974.p.36

[20] Brock, Dan , Theoryof Justice,40 U. Chi. L. Rev.] (1973)p.488.

[21] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 5.

[22] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 5.

[23] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.5.

[24] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.3.

[25] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.62.

[26] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.440.

[27] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.63.

[28] George P. Grant, English-Speaking Justice, MountAllison University. New Brunswick1974.p.31

[29] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.12.

[30] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 15.

[31] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.208.

[32] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.4.

[33] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 16. However Rawls mentioned that“justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems ofthought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised ifit is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arrangedmust be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.See Rawls, A Theory of Justice,
P. 3.

[34] George Parkin Grant, English-Speaking Justice, Mount Allison University. New Brunswick1974.p.20-1.

[35] George Parkin Grant, English-Speaking Justice, Mount Allison University. New Brunswick1974.p.38

[36] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.60.

[37] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.14-15.

[38] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.101.

[39] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.214.

[40] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.61

[41] George Parkin Grant, English-Speaking Justice, Mount Allison University. New Brunswick1974.p.42

[42] George Parkin Grant, English-Speaking Justice, Mount Allison University. New Brunswick1974.p.44

[43] George Parkin Grant, English-Speaking Justice, Mount Allison University. New Brunswick1974.p.46

[44]Brock, Dan, Theoryof Justice.40 U. Chi. L. Rev.] (1973)p.488.

[45] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.61.

[46] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.213.

[47] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.215.

[48] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 43.

[49] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 44.

[50] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.61.

[51] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 111.

[52] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 113.

[53] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 114.

[54] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.102.

[55] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.107.

[56] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.5.

[57] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, HarvardUniversity Press Cambridge 1971 P.453.

[58] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 5.

[59] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 8-9.

[60] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 27.

[61] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 59.

[62] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 55.

[63] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 199.

[64] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 6.

[65] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 21

[66] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 33.

[67] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 39.

[68] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 34.

[69] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 40.

[70] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 144.

[71] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 21.

[72] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 14.

[73] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 40.

[74] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 29.

[75] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 11.

[76] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 12.

[77] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 12-13.

[78] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 14.

[79] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 15.

[80] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 16.

[81] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 11.

[82] John Rawls, Justice as Fairness A Restatement, HarvardUniversity Press 2001,P. 10.

[83] George Parkin Grant,English-Speaking Justice, MountAllison University. New Brunswick 1974.p.26

[84] George Parkin Grant,English-Speaking Justice, MountAllison University. New Brunswick 1974.p.26


您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则


站内文章仅为网友提供更多信息,不代表本网站同意其说法或描述,也不构成任何建议。本网站仅为网友提供交流平台,对网友自由上传的文字和图片等,本网站
不为其版权和内容等负责。站内部分内容转载自其它社区、论坛或各种媒体,有些原作者未知。如您认为站内的某些内容属侵权,请及时与我们联络并进行处理。
关于我们|隐私政策|免责条款|版权声明|网站导航|帮助中心
道至大 道天成

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|联系我们|天易综合网 (Twitter@wolfaxcom)

GMT-5, 2/17/2018 21:44 , Processed in 0.126165 second(s), 10 queries , Gzip On.

Copyright 天易网 network. All Rights Reserved.

© 2009-2015 .

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表