The Problem of Original Position
Rawls vs Habermas

Joshua Caesar Elegado

§There is pluralism in the democratic society

§Because of pluralism, there are conflicting comprehensive doctrines to begin with.

§Is it possible to have fair agreement between citizens?

§A device would show us the best way possible for us in arranging a well-ordered society and at the same time would situate every citizen as we enter into a social contract.

§Social contract is an agreement among the society itself to form the society in which they live

§The original position characterizes our social contract for it models the way we articulate conceptions and principles for the development of democratic society of social cooperation

§The original position as a social contract is designed to show the most reasonable, hence fair, terms of cooperation among democratic citizens as rational and reasonable persons who are regarded as free and equal given the fact of reasonable pluralism.

§as representatives of the free and rational citizens, who are concerned to further the interests of those they represent choosing among themselves in one joint act a conception of justice which will assign basic rights and duties and determine the distribution of social primary goods in democratic society, that is, the rationally autonomous parties in this original position decide upon the first principles of justice which will condition the basic structure.

Methods of the original position

§Veil of Ignorance

§Reflective equilibrium

§to ensure that what emerges from such original position is the result of a fair agreement

On veil of ignorance

§Hypothetically, having an amnesia

§Conception of the thin theory of the good

On reflective equilibrium

§reflective deliberation brings the parties to test the different concepts and principles of the various schools of thought with the concepts and principles they have, looking for some ways and other possibilities where some of the concepts and principles are parallel, related, and supportive of other concepts and principles.

§The idea of the original position as a device of representation is a means of public reflection and self-clarification

Objection of Habermas

§Habermas questioned the argumentation of Rawls on the idea of original position. He asked three questions:

§(1) Can the parties in the original position comprehend the highest-order interests of their clients solely on the basis of rational egoism?

§(2) Can basic rights be assimilated to primary goods?

§(3) Does the veil of ignorance guarantee the impartiality of judgment?

§Habermas thought that Rawls has an inherent confusion on his own idea of the relationship between the citizens in the democratic society and the parties in the original position.

§Citizens – Fully autonomous

§Parties- Rationally autonomous

Because of the Orginal Position

§the parties cannot promote what is good for all for they are blinded by the rational design of the original position

§Answering 1, parties lack the characteristics and do not have the necessary cognitive competences to the issues of justice. As such, they cannot take adequate account of the highest-order interests of the fully autonomous citizens

Rawls' reply

Such device of representation makes us to understand that in order for us to articulate public principles of justice that are most reasonable must be so conceived that the parties with the veil of ignorance must be able to situate themselves free from those information that would affect the value of publicity and reasonableness .

§The rationally autonomous parties are able to represent the fully autonomous citizens for the parties are motivated to act according to and for the sake of justice, what they know only is what the primary social goods are / THIN THEORY OF THE GOOD

§Habermas supposed that Rawls construed basic liberties as basic rights but was compelled to take them as primary goods.

§In effect, rights are forfeited/surrendered of their deontological meaning (duty) confusing the relationship between rights and goods; rights are taken as goods prima facie but there is a deontological distinction between them. Deontological meaning of obligatory norms cannot be teleological meaning of preferred values. This is Rawlsian confusion.

§Habermas believed in moral meaning over political

§But Rawls did not conceive of the idea of the good as conceived by Habermas. For Rawls, the idea of the good is taken as political, not moral. In Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good, Rawls emphasized that right and the good are complementary

reasonable political conception of justice

§a) that they are, or can be, shared by citizens regarded as free and equal; and

§(b) that they do not presuppose any particular fully (or partially) comprehensive doctrine

5 ideas of the good

§the idea of goodness as rationality;

§ the idea of primary goods;

§ the idea of permissible comprehensive conceptions of the good (those associated with comprehensive doctrines);

§ the idea of political virtues; and

§the idea of the good of a well -ordered (political) society

All and all for the reply for 2

§Citizens here should have to be conceived always as a political conception (as free and equal) with its account of moral powers and highest-order interests

Number 3, Habermas’ impartial judgement

§Such veil impaired an impartial judgment. There can only be impartiality (treating all rivals or disputants equally; fair and just.) of judgment if the normative concepts involved in the original position can still address and bear morally significant future experiences and learning processes.

§Parties cannot understand the highest-order interests of the citizens and make rational decisions for them because of the systematic deprivation of information and practical reason given the veil of ignorance.

§ This has resulted to a form of neutralization of the particular interpretive perspectives

Rawls’ reply

§Rawls did not suggest in any form that the idea of original position is the only source of the impartiality of judgment as we constitute our democratic society.

§The purpose of the original position is for us to conceive of the public political principles of justice (as fairness).

§

§The entire idea of political liberalism vis -à-vis justice as fairness lies in the justification as provided in the four-stage sequence

four-stage sequence

§first, start at the original position where the parties articulate and select the public principles of justice;

§second, with the principles of justice, we draw up principles and rules of constitution seeing ourselves as delegates in a constitutional convention;

§third, we become legislators enacting laws based on the constitution and principles of justice; and

§fourth, we take the role as members of the judiciary as we interpret the constitution and laws.

§Habermas‟ concerns shall be addressed as we go further to every other stage where the veil is slowly lifted and information are slowly provided to guarantee impartiality of judgment for a democratic society of social cooperation.