Procedure and substance in accounts of justice
In this thesis I present a philosophical argument that defends a particular approach to the legitimation of substantive principles of justice in the context of a modern society. Philosophy must seek to justify a procedure of legitimation that gives us a conception of an impartial point of view. This procedure could then act as a critical test of substantive claims about justice. However philosophy must not actually carry this legitimacy test out itself This task must be left to all those who are to be affected by the principles in question. The first of three chapters is a critical analysis of the procedure of impartiality that is outlined by John Rawls. I will argue that a consideration of the views of Rawls's communitarian, post-structuralist and feminist critics reveals that his procedure is flawed in a number of important respects. The most important flaw is the fact that Rawls's procedure represents a monological point of view where all differences between represented parties are eliminated prior to a consideration of substantive principles of justice. In the second chapter, Michael Walzer's attempt to theorise justice without recourse to a philosophical conception of an impartial procedure will be examined.
O'Neill, Shane
Philosophy
Procedure and substance in accounts of justice. In this thesis I present a philosophical argument that defends a particular approach to the legitimation of substantive principles of justice in the context of a modern society. Philosophy must seek to justify a procedure of legitimation that gives us a conception of an impartial point of view. This procedure could then act as a critical test of substantive claims about justice. However philosophy must not actually carry this legitimacy test out itself This task must be left to all those who are to be affected by the principles in question. The first of three chapters is a critical analysis of the procedure of impartiality that is outlined by John Rawls. I will argue that a consideration of the views of Rawls's communitarian, post-structuralist and feminist critics reveals that his procedure is flawed in a number of important respects. The most important flaw is the fact that Rawls's procedure represents a monological point of view where all differences between represented parties are eliminated prior to a consideration of substantive principles of justice. In the second chapter, Michael Walzer's attempt to theorise justice without recourse to a philosophical conception of an impartial procedure will be examined.
procedure substance account_justice present philosophical_argument defend particular legitimation substantive principle justice context modern_society philosophy must seek justify procedure legitimation give conception impartial point_view procedure could act critical test substantive claim justice however philosophy must actually carry legitimacy test_task must leave affected principle question first_three critical_analysis procedure outline john_rawls argue consideration view rawls communitarian post_structuralist feminist critic reveals procedure flaw number_important respect important flaw fact rawls procedure represent point_view difference represent party eliminate prior consideration substantive principle justice second attempt theorise justice without recourse philosophical conception impartial procedure examine