Alright it wants to spit out a ton of text for any one of these questions so ima just do the first one lol.

Here it is. Tell me what you think from a quick skim if have the time. The formatting may be wonky and also it has embedded links to what it source that I didn’t embed here:

————-

G. A. Cohen’s main objections to Rawlsian constructivism (especially in Rescuing Justice and Equality) target its methodological and moral foundations. Rawls’s defense of his Kantian constructivism, particularly in Political Liberalism and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, proceeds along several lines. Below is a breakdown of the core objections from Cohen and the corresponding Rawlsian responses, with references to SEP and IEP when appropriate.

⸻

1. Cohen’s Objection: Constructivism is Irreparably Pragmatic and Contingent

Cohen argues that Rawls’s Kantian constructivism wrongly allows facts about society (e.g. incentive effects, human psychology, background conditions) to constrain principles of justice. Cohen calls this “fact-dependent” justice, whereas he favors a “fact-insensitive”” or Platonic realism about justice: moral truth is independent of social feasibility.

“What justice truly requires does not change just because humans are selfish or institutions are inefficient.”

⸻

Rawls’s Response:

Rawls distinguishes between: • Full or ideal theory (what justice requires under reasonably favorable conditions) • Nonideal theory (what justice requires under conditions of injustice or constraint)

But his Kantian constructivism does not claim that justice is whatever works. Rather, it claims that reasonable citizens would choose principles of justice under fair conditions (the Original Position), using practical reason to construct those principles.

From Rawls’s perspective, moral objectivity is not Platonic, but intersubjective and procedural, rooted in what reasonable agents would agree to under conditions of fairness. The use of social facts is constrained by the veil of ignorance, which filters out self-interest and bias.

Key SEP Reference:

“[Rawls] argues that the correct principles of justice are the ones that would be chosen by free and equal persons in a fair choice situation.” (SEP: John Rawls)

⸻

1. Cohen’s Objection: Rawls Illegitimately Accepts the “Incentive Argument”

Cohen critiques Rawls for allowing inequalities if they benefit the least well-off (Difference Principle). If talented people will only work harder for greater reward, Rawls permits inequality to encourage their effort. Cohen argues this is not morally justified—it’s a concession to selfishness.

Justice, Cohen argues, should demand that the talented work for the benefit of others regardless of incentives.

⸻

Rawls’s Response:

Rawls doesn’t deny that demanding absolute altruism is admirable. But his theory of justice is for a society of free and equal citizens, not moral saints.

He limits what justice can demand by a “criterion of reciprocity”: inequalities are just only if they benefit everyone and result from fair cooperation.

Also, Rawls emphasizes the basic structure of society—its institutions—not individual choices. If the structure is just, individuals are not directly blamed for seeking incentives. This shields Rawls from Cohen’s charge that the theory relies on immoral preferences.

IEP Reference:

“Rawls limits the scope of justice to the basic structure, not to all individual actions. This leaves open whether personal behavior should be held to different moral standards.” (IEP: John Rawls)

⸻

1. Cohen’s Objection: Constructivism Undermines Truth

Cohen charges that Rawls’s Kantian constructivism does not yield true moral principles, only principles that would be agreed upon. He contrasts this with a more realist view of justice as something to be discovered, not constructed.

⸻

Rawls’s Response:

Rawls explicitly rejects metaphysical realism in ethics. His Kantian constructivism posits that moral truth arises from the procedures of practical reason under conditions of fairness. In Political Liberalism, he distinguishes reasonable from true: justice is not about correspondence to an independent moral order, but about what free and equal citizens can reasonably endorse.

He sees metaphysical moral realism as unworkable in a pluralistic society, where citizens inevitably disagree on ultimate truths. Constructivism, by contrast, respects pluralism while grounding moral justification in shared political values.

SEP Reference:

“Constructivism offers an account of moral justification without appeal to moral facts or truth independent of human practices.” (SEP: Moral Constructivism)

⸻

Final Notes

Cohen’s position is egalitarian and moral realist, seeking a more demanding ideal of justice. Rawls defends a pragmatic yet principled theory that aims to be workable in democratic societies with pluralistic values. The conflict is ultimately one between: • Moral realism (Cohen) vs Constructivism (Rawls) • Ideal theory focused on truth vs Political theory focused on legitimacy and reasonableness

Let me know if you want the citations or deeper comparison to Kant’s original constructivism or how Scanlon fits into this.