91B0FBB4-04A9-D5D7-16F0F3976AA697ED
C9A22247-E776-B892-2D807E7555171534

Celeste Friend, visiting assistant professor of philosophy, presented her paper, "Rawls, Abortion, and the Liberal Problem of Personhood," at a Kirkland Project  lunch talk on October 20. Friend, presented (not endorsed) an argument against abortion rights that could be derived from Rawls's argument in his renowned book, A Theory of Justice. Friend admitted that his argument may seem "counter-intuitive," as Rawls is considered to have a rather liberal conception of society. The lecture was sponsored by the Kirkland Project.

Friend began her discussion by outlining Rawls' basic argument in his A Theory of Justice; although the book was published in 1972, she said, it has undergone several revisions since its initial publication.

Rawls' theory relies on an understanding of people and their capacities, an idea influenced by Kant. In his book, Rawls outlines a more abstract theory of the state of nature called the original position. In this original position, people are under the "veil of influence," which means that people are unaware of their social circumstances. These circumstances, Friend explained, range from age to sex to intellectual capacities. In the original position, all people occupy the same standpoint, as their distinguishing social circumstances are completely masked by his veil of influence. Therefore, everyone in the original position must assume that they are in the worst position upon exiting the original position, and must imagine themselves as the most vulnerable in society. Also, people in the original position are both rational and self-centered.

In the original position, according to Rawls, there are two principles of justice: civil liberties, and social and economic goods. As we are rational beings in the original position, we rationally prefer civil liberties over any economic accumulation. However, as in the original position under the veil of influence, we do not know what our social status or circumstances will be in the real world; therefore, we will always choose the economic situation that is best for the least advantaged person in society. These two principles of justice must be dealt with before social or political organization, Friend explained.

How does one get this counter-intuitive anti-abortion argument from Rawls' theory? Friend explained that the problem with Rawls argument is who he defines as a person in the original position. As in the original position we are supposed to imagine ourselves as vulnerable and powerless, we can take this position and imagine that we are fetuses in the original position. Friend argued that "one would be first and foremost inclined to protect one's self-interest by putting in a principle, prior to Rawls' two principles of justice, which would establish a right to life of all persons." Therefore, this argument could lead to supporting an anti-choice argument.

Friend then tried to explain how Rawls would react to such a reading of his political theory; he would argue that as fetuses are not rational and do not have experience, they cannot be in the original position. However, as Friend explained, there are problems with this rebuttal, including a lack of distinction between a human and a person.

In conclusion, Friend said that feminists should be skeptical of Rawls' theory, the problem of abortion on a philosophical plane is intractable, and finally, that liberalism, as exemplified by Rawls' argument, "is not equipped to deal with the problem of personhood." 

-- by Emily Lemanczyk '05

 

Help us provide an accessible education, offer innovative resources and programs, and foster intellectual exploration.

Site Search