Hilzoy joins in the Galston on Rawls fun

here. She seems to take the “indispensable to the argument” reading of the first problematic passage noted previously, and then notes one additional problem with it: the notion that religious presuppositions are indispensable to Rawls’s argument is a very weird thing to believe:

This is true. But it’s not clear, to me at least, why one might think that Rawls’ early Christianity, which he had abandoned long before he published A Theory Of Justice, would turn out not just to illuminate that work (which it does), but to be indispensable to it — to call into question the extent to which non-Christians could accept it. For that to be the case, the arguments in TJ would have not just to be informed by Rawls’ experience of religion, but to require religious presuppositions. And it’s not clear why one would think that that is true.

I agree. The rest of Hilzoy’s post is totally worth a read.


Leave a Comment