Nick begins his theorising about justice from the perspective of the one wronged. When Rawls begins his, he positions the setting in an abstract condition where everybody is blinded about their personal preference; stripped the citizens of so many items of knowledge. The idea was to develop a theory of justice from a standpoint that Rawls considers neutral. Nick's approach is different. Now someone may ask him why starts from the one being wronged; why not from a neutral position. Nick's argument is that there is no one who really starts truly from a neutral position; we all start from certain position.
The point, therefore, is not whether someone starts from the one wronged or from obligation perspective or from the religiously neutral perspective; the point is whether the theory is able to adequately takes into consideration issues of justice and injustice.
I would want to add that even Rawls has an idea of the good in his assumption. He calls it the 'thin theory' of the good. So, yes Rawls' starting point is also not really neutral though it may appear neutral at first glance. Everyone starts of from somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment