Rawlsian Constructivism and the Assumption of Disunity

What is it about?

This article is about methodology in normative theorising, that is, about how one should go about formulating and justifying principles about what should be done. The main conclusion is that the standard method in this field of theorising, that is, reflective equilibrium, should be complemented with an auxiliary method, Rawlsian constructivism, to be more practically relevant. The method of reflective equilibrium recommends that normative principles should be tested against intuitive judgements about cases, in the ambition to find versions of them that cohere with what we intuitively believe is right or wrong to do. Rawlsian constructivism recommends locating this process of justification in particular domains, where it is given the aim of articulating normative principles which address the specific problems of these domains and thereby unite their stakeholders. The combination of Rawlsian constructivism and the method of reflective equilibrium yields a practically oriented process of justification, which work under the assumption that different domains will need to be guided with different normative principles to overcome domain-specific tensions.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This article contributes to making normative theorising more practically relevant. The standard method of reflective equilibrium will typically lead to highly abstract theoretical constructs, whose bearing on concrete decisions and actions are unclear. Rawlsian constructivism anchors the process of justifying normative principles to relatively concrete domains, and so promises to produce action-guiding normative principles which address the specific problems practitioners of these domains face. This is important in practical ethics, such as in climate ethics, ethics of war and medical ethics.