Two readings of A theory of justice

Abstract

My objective in this article is to maintain that the work A theory of justice, published in 1971 by John Rawls, has two possible readings with regard to the justification of his two principles of justice. The first, a formal reading, attributes a central role to the device of the original position and maintains that in this situation of choice, rationally interested parties would choose the two principles of justice. I consider that this reading has two problems: (1) it is unable to justify the difference principle; and (2) it has the normative cost of reducing moral questions to questions of rationality. Subsequently, I demonstrate that there is the possibility of constructing a second reading, which we can call informal, which directly appeals to the idea of ​​a reasonable moral agreement between citizens, thus avoiding the problems arising from the argument centered on the original position.