Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Original Position
Related Topics
Capitalism
Colonialism
Free Trade
Global Democracy
Global Egalitarianism
Global Justice
Global Resource Distribution
Globalization
International Organizations
Multinational Corporations
Post-Colonialism
Third World Resistance
References
Amuzegar J (2001) Managing the oil wealth: OPECs windfalls and
pitfalls. IB Tauris, London
Campbell KM, Price J (eds) (2008) The global politics of energy. The
Aspen Institute, Queenstown
Falola T, Genova A (2008) The politics of the global oil industry: an
introduction. Praeger, New York
Parra FR (2004) Oil politics: a modern history of petroleum. IB Tauris,
London
Skeet I (1991) OPEC: twenty-five years of prices and politics. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Original Position
ALYSSA R. BERNSTEIN
Department of Philosophy, Ohio University,
Athens, OH, USA
Original Position
787
788
Original Position
Original Position
party to consider how each principle might affect everyone, especially the people who would end up in the least
advantaged positions. Each partys best option is the principle(s) that will best enable the (represented) citizen to
pursue his or her goals, whatever these goals turn out to be
and whatever position the citizen turns out to occupy.
Similarly, in LP an analogous stipulation that the parties
in the original position are mutually disinterested ensures
that every peoples fundamental interests will get secured
in the Society of Peoples.
The question Rawls tries to answer in JF is the following, he says: Which principles are most appropriate
for a democratic society that not only professes but
wants to take seriously the idea that citizens are free and
equal, and tries to realize that idea in its main institutions?
He rephrases this question as follows: Once we view a
democratic society as a fair system of social cooperation
between citizens regarded as free and equal, what principles are most appropriate to it? (Rawls 2001). The principles are to specify basic rights and liberties and to
regulate fundamental social and economic inequalities,
namely, Rawls says, the differences in citizens prospects
over a complete life, as these are affected by such things as
their social class of origin, their native endowments, their
opportunities for education, and their good or ill fortune
over the course of life. These inequalities are, he says, his
primary concern in JF (Rawls 2001). After arguing for the
first principle (which ascribes equal basic liberties), Rawls
considers whether any differences in citizens life prospects
can be consistent with the idea of free and equal citizenship in a society that is seen as a fair system of cooperation,
and if so, what principles establish the legitimacy of those
differences.
This question about legitimate inequalities requires an
answer that appeals only to principles and values that each
citizen can endorse, because as participants in a constitutional democracy, they will use the coercive power of their
state to conform their societys institutions to these principles and values, thus wielding political power over one
another. No answer is immediately evident to Rawls; he
says that his convictions about principles regulating social
and economic inequalities are much less firm and assured
than his firmest considered convictions about equal basic
rights and liberties, the fair value of the political liberties
and fair equality of opportunity (Rawls 2001). Therefore,
Rawls considers the appropriate method for finding the
guidance that is needed. He proposes taking guidance
from his firmest considered convictions about the nature
of a democratic society. In order to see whether the
combined assertion of those convictions by means of the
original position will help to identify an appropriate
789
790
Original Position
A global original position would, they contend, yield globally applicable analogues of the two principles of JF (See
the entry on Law of Peoples in this encyclopedia).
Amartya Sen (2009) criticizes Rawlss ideal theory as
transcendental and of little practical use for addressing
real-world injustices. In reply, Samuel Freeman (2010)
notes that although consequentialists (including Sen)
regard ideal theories as unnecessary, Rawls opposed
consequentialism by arguing that justice restricts permissible means for promoting good consequences. Moreover,
Freeman argues, idealizations designed to systematize our
moral convictions can clarify ideas about justice, guide
thinking about long-term or extensive reforms, and
inspire action. If Freeman and Rawls are right, the original
position can be of significant help in the effort to secure
justice both domestically and globally.
Related Topics
Contractarianism
Law of Peoples
Political Liberalism
Public Reason
Rawls, John
Second Original Position
Social Contract
References
Bernstein AR (2009) Kant, Rawls, and cosmopolitanism: toward perpetual peace and the law of peoples. Jb Recht Ethik Annu Rev Law Ethics
17:352
Blake M (2005) International justice. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/international-justice/
Cohen J (2003) For a democratic society. In: Freeman S (ed) The
Cambridge companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Dworkin R (1973) The original position. Univ Chic Law Rev
40(3):500533
Freeman S (2010) A new theory of justice. New York Review of Books,
New York, pp 5860
Freeman S (2007) The burdens of public justification: constructivism,
contractualism, and publicity. Polit Philos Econ 4:543
Mandle J (2009) Rawlss A theory of justice: an introduction. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Nagel T (1973) Rawls on justice. Philos Rev 82(2):220234
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York
Rawls J (1999) The law of peoples. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Rawls J (2001) Justice as fairness: a restatement. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge
Rawls J (2007) Lectures on the history of political philosophy. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge
Scanlon TM (2003) Rawls on justification. In: Freeman S (ed) The
Cambridge companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge