Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:10:22.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review Article: Autonomy, Justice and Contractarianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Vinit Haksar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , October 1973 , pp. 487 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).Google Scholar All future page references unless otherwise stated are to this book.

2 Barry, B., ‘Social Justice’, Oxford Review, V (1967), 29–52.Google Scholar

3 See my paper, ‘Rawls’ theory of justice’, Analysis, XXXII (1972), 149–53.Google Scholar My objections there against the earlier version of Rawls’ theory may apply, in part, against his present version also, if I am right in rejecting the finality condition. For, as Rawls admits (pp. 584–5), his present version retains ethical constraints.

4 See for instance, his paper ‘Constitutional Liberty and the Concept of Justice’ in Freidrich, Carl J. and Chapman, J. W., eds., Nomos VI: Justice (New York: Atherton Press, 1963).Google Scholar I have, in the paper refered to in footnote 3, discussed this version of Rawls’ argument.