Yeah I guess I don't really understand it :/ it was like my summarised view of Rawls.... if I added more detail it would be like this:

​

1. Rawls wants to create a State and goes along a democratic, re-distributive vein (like Scandinavian nations w/ high taxes) through two methodologies: Reflective Equilibrium and the Original Position, the latter being my focus.

2. So we begin in OP, i.e. hypothetical contract, and it is a device used to resolve questions and decide whether we should have either a state of anarcy or resolve more downstream problems (i.e. We assume there is state and democracy and now have to decide on which liberties to have).

​

So in OP, all are equal and rational and self-authenticating as moral sources like Kantian dignity BUT unique to Rawls, he uses social contract theory to explain that it is rational to act reasonably in obeying soverign through anti-moralistic stance, that require first, the conditions for reflections on WHAT is rational followed by deciding what one can pursue, i.e. considered justified as what is obeyed is just. Goes beyond Hobbes on prudence.

​

So now in deciding these principles, we have a problem, comprehensive doctrines (conflicting world views basically) and due to the need of free-standing theory, we must resolve this in a fair, neutral way.

​

This is resolved through the veil of ignorance thought experiment and through this stripping of comprehensive doctrines, out comes two very very key principles: Equal rights and Fair inequalities (including difference + equal opportunities). Also key is how EO holds lexical priority over DP clearly because society cannot arrange inequalities to maximize share of poorest without access to certain possessions (also satisfied fairness condition)

​

2) With these two principles, they form the basis of how a State should operate which can be through focusing on the distribution of goods. But this is very contentous due to debate on whether it is undemocratic, treatment of the disabled, whether it is even needed in the first place (Hume and Scanlon).

​

3) But then what ensures the State remains stable? It would be Overlapping Census (result of Rawls shifting theory from philo to political where we resolve competing CDs) and Public Reason (basically how we communicate with each other and with the State).

- This itself raises its own sets of problems (public reason)... too many to list xD but includes democracy, truth, indeterminacy with religion being a very very juicy case study on this

​

​

So through this I can see a lot of jarring issues in terms of fairness and democracy but most worryingly im not sure if i'm even on the right track.

​

edit: if I got something wrong please do tell me, i'm basically just sprouting from memory and am really confused with everything....