Matt Zwolinski (University of San Diego) has posted The Separateness of Persons and Liberal Theory on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The fact that persons are separate in some descriptive sense is relatively uncontroversial. But one of the distinctive ideas of contemporary liberal political philosophy is that the descriptive fact of our separateness is normatively momentous. John Rawls and Robert Nozick both take the separateness of persons to provide a foundation for their rejection of utilitarianism and for their own positive political theories. So why do their respective versions of liberalism look so different? This paper claims that the difference is based in Rawls’ and Nozick’s differing understandings of the morally significant aspects of personhood, and argues that respect for separateness is a value better suited to defend Nozickian libertarianism than Rawlsian liberalism.
And a bit more from the text:
Rawls’ decision to strip away these aspects of individuals leaves him in an odd position for one committed to respecting the separateness of persons. For once all the factors that Rawls deems as arbitrary have been hidden behind the veil of ignorance, there is nothing left to effectively differentiate individuals at all. The differences still exist, in some sense, but cannot play any role in the negotiations which take place behind the veil. The principles of justice which result from the original position are thus not really the product of a process of give-and-take compromise between different people with different interests. They are, as Rawls himself notes, essentially the result of one person’s choice – a person who, once cleansed of all morally arbitrary factors, is exactly the same as everyone else.38 A hypothetical contract between different individuals has the appearance of taking separateness seriously, but with Rawls’ theory the appearance is only superficial. And this merely superficial respect for separateness explains many of the most damning criticisms which have been brought against Rawls’ theory from both ends of the political spectrum.
Very nice piece–although I’m not sure I agree with the conclusion. Highly recommended.