I was the beneficiary of a scholarship funded by the great imperialist Cecil Rhodes. And the third answer is the answer that Aristotle gave: justice means giving people what they deserve, where what they deserve depends on their virtue and depends on sorting out hard questions about the good life.
Can I take pride in the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution, or in Abraham Lincoln getting rid of slavery?
Rawls' argument depends on the assumption of the veil of ignorancewhich he claims allows us to become "unencumbered selves".
Sandel asks: what would you have done under the same circumstances—and what reasoning would you apply to justify your decision? The idea here is that one needs to understand the underlying meaning of something e.
Email Nigel Warburton: For me the word justice seems to imply that there is some injustice in the world—it seems to be something like a legal term almost, that you want to set things to rights. For Kant morality means respecting persons as ends in themselves, not treating persons only as means.
It certainly has been the most widely discussed. Sandel rightly points out the shallowness of that debate and adds a third criterion: how will it affect the common good? It is passionate and unrelenting, and yet meticulous and scrupulous in its argumentation….
Sandel's view is that we are by nature encumbered to an extent that makes it impossible even in the hypothetical to have such a veil.