Who was in the wrong?

Rawls got eternally BTFO. His refusal to reason beyond moral means and actually try to establish non-ideological truths are what makes TOJ so easy to critique, explaining its status as the punching bag of the last fifty years of political philosophy. When he introduces thought experiments like the Original Condition, he fails to adequately link such an idea to the moral view he wishes to purport, instead appealing to something as weak as hypothetical self-interest

File: 1493984372485.jpg (155KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 540x540px

>>3152402
>A thought experiment that demonstrates the golden rule in political philosophy isn't a moral guideline

>>3152408
Except it doesnt

File: 1491110760973.png (36KB, 268x237px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 268x237px

>>3152493
Doesn't a moral guideline?

>>3152499
Is everything that provides a guidline also a guildline for morals? If so, it's the first time I've heard anyone claim they can use an IKEA instructions as an ethical compass.

File: 1491113314205.jpg (32KB, 276x304px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 276x304px

>>3152529
>The golden rule isn't a piece of moral guidance that transcends cultural boundaries