Friedman’s critique that the originalist position is divorced from the utilitarianism of classical liberalism is not quite accurate since John Harsanyi’s formulation is a straight-forward max(utilitarian)one. The Rawls-Harsanyi differences regarding the VOI demonstrated that the VOI lacked a normative risk aversion model(Rawls is infinite risk aversion; Harsanyi zero risk aversion). This problem in part is what led Rawls to eventually try to justify the principles of justice in terms of “Public Reason.”
Frankly, I think any claim that Public Reason is a “gold standard” of social justice is pretty thin and dubious.
Friedman’s critique that the originalist position is divorced from the utilitarianism of classical liberalism is not quite accurate since John Harsanyi’s formulation is a straight-forward max(utilitarian)one. The Rawls-Harsanyi differences regarding the VOI demonstrated that the VOI lacked a normative risk aversion model(Rawls is infinite risk aversion; Harsanyi zero risk aversion). This problem in part is what led Rawls to eventually try to justify the principles of justice in terms of “Public Reason.”
Frankly, I think any claim that Public Reason is a “gold standard” of social justice is pretty thin and dubious.
My take: “The Social Justice of a Police State”
http://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/the-social-justice-of-a-police-state/