In
general, I respect Rawls for trying to find a way to block out some
of our biases when formulating principles of justice. But in very
general terms, I see Rawls as part of a number of traditions that I
think are dead ends. This is partly a criticism
of his whole project, but we can also think of it as a criticism
of the Original Position.
First of all, he wants to formulate general
principles. That's what the Original Position is all about. The
assumption is that we need general rules, like scientific laws, that
cover specific situations. The model here is natural science. And
when he gets to the process of reflective equilibrium, he continues with the same model.
We are to look at the data (in this case our considered moral intuitions) and
try to formulate generalizations that subsume as much of
the data as possible. Now, to me it seems obvious that the search for
universal moral principles has been a failure. We don’t have to go around
the world to prove that. We just have to pay attention to the
different views found here in our own society.
Margaret Walker has written an interesting paper called
"Feminism, Ethics, and the Question of Theory." She refers to what
she calls the "theoretical-juridicial model" which seeks, like
science, to formulate general principles in a very systematic way.
She agrees that this model fits some moral situations very well, but
she also believes that there are situations that it doesn't fit well
at all. Some situations require "personal relationship or responsive
care taking, situations that require sensitivity, flexibility,
discretion, and improvisation." Walker thinks that there are other
forms that morality can take -- other models. She talks about what
she calls the expressive-collaborative" model as an alternative to
the theoretical-juridicial model. So the question is, what would
justice be like if we thought in terms of the
expressive-collaborative model?
Second, he exhibits the typical
male preoccupation with the problem of rights and obligations. What about care? Love? Trust?
And other elements of morality? Modern male philosophers have tended to
ignore those elements and focus on rights and obligations, rights
and obligations, over and over. They're all baseball fans looking
for the rule book.
|