John Rawls's ?veil of ignorance? approach to ethical decision making is a staple in mass media ethics literature, but Rawls's overarching theory of distributive justice receives less consideration in public relations ethics than in other communication disciplines. Public relations ethicists who describe the veil often divorce it from Rawls's original intention. This paper describes Rawls's theory; its uses and misuses in contemporary discussions of public relations ethics; six reasons why the veil seems to be a difficult fit for public relations (...) practitioners; and Rawlsian considerations in the context of three commonly accepted public relations models. (shrink)

The present paper builds on the Rawlsian critique of utilitarianism in order to identify the moral implications of Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. While Luhmann aptly discerned the pervasive problems of the precarious system–environment relations throughout the modern society, he took moral communication to be person-centered and thus ill-equipped to deal with these problems. At the same time, the Rawlsian possibility of sacrificing fundamental liberties for the sake of economic gains not only exemplifies the Luhmannian precariousness of the relations of (...) the economic system to its societal environment, but also shows this precariousness to be a moral problem. Thus, from the systems-theoretic perspective, the Rawlsian idea of justice denotes the moral dimension of the capacity of the societal environment to carry the economic system. More generally, the proposed complementarity between Rawls and Luhmann allows to see the precariousness of system–environment relations, for any type of social system, as a moral problem. Two implications follow. First, the morally problematic manifestations of the precarious system–environment relations are not limited to the Rawlsian case of the discrimination of the least advantaged groups but rather include a broad range of social costs and damaging effects of business on society and nature. Second, and related, the proposed systems-theoretic perspective explicates the moral value of sustainability of the economic as well as other social systems in their environment, societal and ecological alike. (shrink)

O artigo tem o objetivo de investigar as características centrais do modelo ético coerentista utilizado por Rawls nos textos A Theory of Justice , Political Liberalism , “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory” , “Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy” , Lectures on History of Moral Philosophy , “Reply to Habermas” , The Law of Peoples , Justice as Fairness: A Restatement , Collected Papers . Especificamente, quero ver como seu construtivismo político oferece uma alternativa ao problema debatido entre realistas e antirrealistas, (...) a saber, se existem fatos morais independente das crenças ou se estes dependem da estrutura mental do agente, sendo uma alternativa tanto ao construtivismo moral kantiano como ao intuicionismo racional. Quero defender que o construtivismo político é um modelo contratualista coerentista holístico e que faz uso de uma ontologia social, conduzindo a um modelo pragmático de justificação em um âmbito público que supera este impasse em ontologia moral. Para tal, inicio com a controvérsia entre realistas e antirrealistas e, após, analiso a teoria rawlseana à luz deste debate. Por fim, procuro estabelecer algumas considerações conclusivas sobre este problema.This paper aims to investigate the core characteristics of the ethical coherentist model used by Rawls,in texts such as A Theory of Justice , Political Liberalism , “KantianConstructivism in Moral Theory” , “Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy” , Lectureson History of Moral Philosophy , “Reply to Habermas” , The Law ofPeoples , Justice as Fairness: A Restatement , Collected Papers . Morespecifically, I wish to see how his political constructivism provides an alternative to the problem thatrealists and anti-realists discuss, i.e., whether moral facts exist regardless of beliefs or if it there areonly in the structure of the agent’s mind, an alternative both for Kant’s moral constructivism and forrational intuitionism. I wish to point out that the political constructivism is a coherentist holisticcontractarian model and use a social ontology leading to a pragmatic justification model in the publicdomain that go beyond of this moral ontology impasse. Therefore, I will start with the controversybetween realists and anti-realists and after I will analyze the rawlsean theory in light of this debate. Inthe end, I try to show some concluding remarks about this problem. (shrink)

The liberal-egalitarian concept formulated by John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice is still vehemently debated today. Critics of this concept include, among others, Rodion Belkovich and Sergei Vinogradov, according to whom Rawlsians inevitably face a dilemma: they need to reject either the difference principle or luck egalitarianism, and each of these solutions leads to the erosion of the basic foundations of Rawls’s theory. The article presents a detailed analysis of the arguments put forward by Belkovich and Vinogradov (...) and demonstrates that the dilemma they identified is flawed for three reasons. First, it blurs the distinction between luck egalitarianism and “straight egalitarianism,” which assumes the complete equality of income and wealth in society. Luck egalitarians do not support the idea of absolute equality in distribution and consider inequality that reflects people’s responsibility for their own choices fair. Second, Rawlsian egalitarianism is essentially equated with luck egalitarianism, while they represent two clearly distinguishable approaches. Third, the kidnapper’s argument, which proves that the difference principle is incompatible with luck egalitarianism, does not provide solid reasoning against the difference principle. The argument is only applicable under limited conditions, when the difference principle is embedded as an assumption in the “argument from incentives,” which in turn is put forward by the potential beneficiaries of this incentive. According to the author’s conclusion, the above mentioned considerations clearly indicate that Rawlsians do not face any dilemma of choosing between luck egalitarianism and the difference principle, and the criticism of Rawls’s theory proposed by Belkovich and Vinogradov should be considered groundless. (shrink)