SEEU Review vol. 5 Nr. 2 (pdf) - South East European University

Dr. Ercan Gündoğan
contractarianism. Rawls simply prohibits voluntarism”. Moreover, “Rawls
model is permanent: there is no provision for review, or any innovation in
the minimum principles. Why not? Again the permanence is simply an
arbitrary choice”. A specific contract justifies a specific society, “other
possible 'social contracts' will justify other possible societies”. This is the
logical errors of all contract theories. However, it is already the fact that
“Rawls model is an approximation of the nation state, that's why. Individuals
are born into a nation - a nation state usually - and most people remain there.
Only a minority migrate across borders”. “Contractarianism is
….suspiciously similar to nationalism. The constraints, which Rawls built
into his fictive assembly model, correspond to the claims of nationalism”.
Those claims are generally that humanity consists of nations; … that the
nation is the standard form of human society and the basic unit of global
order; and that no non-nation may form a state, not now and not ever”.
Treanor states that “None of these nationalist assertions, however, are
absolute truths. They are ideology imposed by military force, at a cost of
millions of deaths” (Treanor, 2003).
The participants is directed to the principles if justice by using a “trick”,
says Treanor. “The trick is to make people forget that - to forget the 'design
features', to forget that other designs might produce equally plausible
results”. Nevertheless, “with the 'veil of ignorance' it is possible to give
alternatives which are at least equally plausible. The participants might
choose these options, rather than Rawls liberalism. They might choose them
even under Rawls' assumptions - to minimise the harm that they might
suffer”. Putting aside this possibility, “those who suffer injustice today
could, in principle, call for a referendum on the states's existence tomorrow.
Again this is just as 'rational' a response to injustice”. Also, there must be a
veto system since “the veto is an effective defense for the weak - if the veto
is extended to them” (Treanor, 2003).
Sharp criticism continues: “the formal equality of rights does not mean
any other equality. They are certainly no guarantee of justice. Millions of
people have starved to death, while enjoying basic political rights”. Of
course, Rawls could reply that basic primary goods are provided in a just
society. But can a just contract ensure this? Moreover, Treanor says that
“The minimal-benefit requirement” is “an inherently unjust principle,
because it specifies no minimum, against which the minimal benefit is
measured”. Actually what Rawls suggests is to persuade the people against
ever worse alternatives. Treanor sees that “Rawls principle allows any social
inequality not conflicting with the basic liberties, because there is always a
28