THE ORIGINAL POSITION REVISITED: DUTY AND JUSTIFICATION

• Autor(a) principal: Engelmann, Mauro L.
• Data de Publicação: 2015
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8642040
• topic: Rawls. Original position. Justification. Natural duty. Dworkin

Dworkin claimed that hypothetical agreements are not binding and, thus, that the argument from the Original Position in Rawls’ A Theory of Justice does not justify or ground the principles of justice. I argue that the Original Position is neither foundational nor in need of a “deep theory”, as claims Dworkin; it is only a means of clarification, a sort of “perspicuous representation” of our judgments concerning justice. I also argue that the natural duty of justice works as a non-hypothetical justification for why the principles are binding. This because the natural duty of justice does not depend on agreements to hold and, as such, makes any principle of justice binding.