References
- 1951 . Philosophical Review 177 – 197 . John Rawls “Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics” 60, pp.
- Rawls , John . 1971 . A Theory of Justice 578 Cambridge : Harvard University Press .
- Ibid. 51
- Ibid.
- 1975 . The Review of Politics 104 – 111 . I think that it is this methodological break with much of the recent analytic tradition rather than his substantive conclusions that is the real source of discontent on the part of many of Rawls's critics. R.M. Hare is quite explicit about this and it is implicit in the criticisms of many other moral philosophers. On this point see my review article “Rawls on Justice” 37, pp.
- Rawls , John . A Theory of Justice 47 – 48 .
- Ibid. 46
- Ibid.
- Ibid. 581
- Ibid. 586 – 587 .
- Cf. ibid., p. 52. I do not mean to suggest that there is no philosophic point to proffering counter-examples; on the contrary, short of constructing an alternative theory, this is the most important task of the philosophic critic of Rawls. My point is simply that no number of counter-examples alone (in the absence of an alternative theory that fares better) will amount to a refutation of Rawls' account.