Question

The passage seems to express concerns and questions regarding how moral relativism might be accommodated within a framework of justice, particularly in the context of John Rawls' theory of justice. Here's a corrected version:

In his theory of justice, Rawls argues that it aligns with autonomy and objectivity (AToJ, sec. 78). The objectivity-friendly aspect, he attributes to the requirement of taking up the perspective of others to some extent. He doesn't explicitly use the term intersubjective, which might have been more fitting. The core idea here is that Rawls rejects perspectives that ignore or destroy other perspectives, indicating a leaning against moral relativism.

AToJ is a lengthy and intricate book, and it introduces interesting considerations regarding the objective yet relative justification of the theory. Rawls discusses tolerating the intolerant (sec. 35), suggesting that physical suppression of a sect is justified only if it poses a significant threat to the stability of a well-ordered society. He invokes the plurality of final ends, arguing that liberty of conscience and freedom of thought should not be based on skepticism or indifference but should find a middle ground between dogmatism and reductionism.

Rawls also entertains relativism-friendly moments, such as acknowledging variations in the implementation of a justifiable political economy based on historical/geographical factors (sec. 42). This flexibility allows different countries to adopt or maintain different economic systems.

Examining the issue, one can view first-order relativism, where diverse perspectives exist, and then consider Rawls' principles of justice as second-order and partly nonrelative over divergent first-order claims. Throughout AToJ, Rawls maintains a considerate tone, suggesting that he's open to the possibility that his arguments may be flawed. This may indicate an inclination away from a strictly absolutist perspective.

In essence, the passage suggests that while Rawls' theory of justice accommodates diversity of perspectives, it doesn't necessarily align with a relativism that uses excuses to avoid engaging in meaningful debate or acknowledging the possibility of being mistaken about justifications. Rawls seems to encourage an open-minded approach to moral disagreement, which may involve ineliminable morally relativistic thought processes to some extent. In John Rawls' theory of justice (AToJ), what does he emphasize regarding perspectives and moral relativism?

a) Rawls strongly advocates for absolutism, rejecting any form of relativism.

b) Rawls suggests that moral relativism is the only valid approach to justice.

c) Rawls argues for the importance of considering diverse perspectives but expresses reservations against perspectives that ignore or destroy others.

d) Rawls dismisses the need for considering historical/geographical variations in the implementation of a justifiable political economy.

Answer 1

John Rawls emphasizes the importance of considering diverse perspectives while expressing reservations against perspectives that ignore or destroy others in his theory of justice.

Step-by-step explanation:

In his theory of justice, John Rawls emphasizes the importance of considering diverse perspectives while expressing reservations against perspectives that ignore or destroy others. He argues for a framework of justice that takes into account the perspectives of all individuals in society, rejecting moral relativism that avoids engaging in meaningful debate or acknowledging the possibility of being mistaken about justifications.

Rawls' two major principles are: 1) each person has an equal right to a comprehensive system of equal basic liberties, and 2) social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged and attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair opportunity.