reva555 Sat Apr 16, 2011 2:29 pmIf we cannot explain
If we cannot explain how these weights are to be determined by reasonable ethical criteria, the means of rational discussion have come to an end An intuitionist conception of justice is. one might say. but half a conception. We should do what we can to formulate explicit principles for the priority problem, even though the de¬pendence on intuition cannot be eliminated entirely. In justice as fairness the tole Tory Burch Flats of intuition is limited m several wayv Since the whole question is rather difficult. 1 shall only make a few comments here the full sense of which will not be clear until later on. The first point n connected with the fad that the principles of justice are those which would be chosen in Ihe original position. They are 22 For SMI. ttt A of L.\\ . 14. VS. h XII. mc. 7. mJ cfc. V. furv :fc-J|. u t lh Uf,imni nw in eoniMOwm in OT\ una fTKrpu ol jvuior For Udf-Kk. ttr Tht VrrWr H {MTA for rtuBpW. tk. IV. a II and III. wblib vjmnurce aiKh ot Ihe Jijument ot K 111 the outcome of a certain choice situation. Now being rational, the persons in the original position res.o$mzc that they should consider the priority of these principles. For if they wish to establish agreed standards foe adjudicating their claims on one another, they will need pnnciples for assigning weights. Tory Burch Outlet They cannot assume that their intuitive judgments of priority will in general be the same; given their different positions in society they surely will not. Thus 1 suppose that in the original position the parties try to teach some agreement as to how the pnnciples of justice are to be balanced. Now part of the value of the notion of chocking principles is that the reasons which underlie their adoption tn the first place may also support giving them certain weights Since in justice as fairness the pnnciples of justice are not thought of as self-esident. but have their justification in the fact that they would be chosen, we may find in the ground for their acceptance some guidance or limitation as to how they are to be balanced. Given the situation of the onginal position, it may be clear that certain priority rules are preferable to others for much the same reasons that principles arc initially assented to By emphasizing the role of justice and the special features of the initial choice situa¬tion. the priority problem may prove more tractable. A second possibility is that we may be able to find principles which can be put in what I shall call a serial or lexical order." (The correct 2i lh H 'teslcopiptifca dtnvet frcw ihr f.;t 0wt tlx man fund it .
If we cannot explain how these weights are to be determined by reasonable ethical criteria, the means of rational discussion have come to an end An intuitionist conception of justice is. one might say. but half a conception. We should do what we can to formulate explicit principles for the priority problem, even though the de¬pendence on intuition cannot be eliminated entirely. In justice as fairness the tole Tory Burch Flats of intuition is limited m several wayv Since the whole question is rather difficult. 1 shall only make a few comments here the full sense of which will not be clear until later on. The first point n connected with the fad that the principles of justice are those which would be chosen in Ihe original position. They are 22 For SMI. ttt A of L.\\ . 14. VS. h XII. mc. 7. mJ cfc. V. furv :fc-J|. u t lh Uf,imni nw in eoniMOwm in OT\ una fTKrpu ol jvuior For Udf-Kk. ttr Tht VrrWr H {MTA for rtuBpW. tk. IV. a II and III. wblib vjmnurce aiKh ot Ihe Jijument ot K 111 the outcome of a certain choice situation. Now being rational, the persons in the original position res.o$mzc that they should consider the priority of these principles. For if they wish to establish agreed standards foe adjudicating their claims on one another, they will need pnnciples for assigning weights. Tory Burch Outlet They cannot assume that their intuitive judgments of priority will in general be the same; given their different positions in society they surely will not. Thus 1 suppose that in the original position the parties try to teach some agreement as to how the pnnciples of justice are to be balanced. Now part of the value of the notion of chocking principles is that the reasons which underlie their adoption tn the first place may also support giving them certain weights Since in justice as fairness the pnnciples of justice are not thought of as self-esident. but have their justification in the fact that they would be chosen, we may find in the ground for their acceptance some guidance or limitation as to how they are to be balanced. Given the situation of the onginal position, it may be clear that certain priority rules are preferable to others for much the same reasons that principles arc initially assented to By emphasizing the role of justice and the special features of the initial choice situa¬tion. the priority problem may prove more tractable. A second possibility is that we may be able to find principles which can be put in what I shall call a serial or lexical order." (The correct 2i lh H 'teslcopiptifca dtnvet frcw ihr f.;t 0wt tlx man fund it .
