Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Grounding the Rawlsian Original Position With Logical Positivism

Grounding the Rawlsian Original Position With Logical Positivism

Ratings: (0)|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Anthony Fejfar
In this Article, the Rawlsian Original Position is grounded in Logical Positivism.
In this Article, the Rawlsian Original Position is grounded in Logical Positivism.

More info:

Published by: Anthony Fejfar on Aug 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Grounding the Rawlsian Original Positionwith Universal LogicByAnthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., M.B.A., Phd.©Copyright (2011 C.E.) by Anthony J. Fejfar and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)John Rawls is one of history’s leading academics writing in the traditionof individual rights. Rawls major work, “A Theory of Justice” (1973),follows and builds upon Magna Charta, Grotius, The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681, The Declaration of Independence, The Pennsylvania Constitution,The Maryland Constitution, and the United States Constitution. John Rawlsgrounds his political philosophy in the ideal construct of the OriginalPosition, which is analogous to John Locke’s Natural Law State of Nature,and The Ethical Matrix, which, I, Anthony Fejfar have developed.A number of law review articles over the year have criticized Rawl’s useof the Original Position, arguing that the construct of the Original Positionis not objectively grounded, and instead is based upon cultural relativism. Iargue that the basic construct of the Original Position can be grounded inUniversal Logical Positivism in a way which Rawls himself did not develop.
Starting with Concrete Logic, we can objectively see that Logic isUniversally and cross-culturally valid. Universal Logic proves that it isimpossible for an (A)pple to exist at the same time and in the same placeas no(t) (A)apple. And, reasoning by analogy, we can also see that it isimpossible for A and not A to exist at the same time and in the same place.From this it logically follows that it is an illegal operation to assert any typeof argument, or assertion, or statement, or action is based upon a (il)logicalcontradiction, that is, is based upon an illegal or false sophistric “reasoning.”Logically, from here we can see that each person has a natural or individualright of liberty to act in accordance with his or her or hae own logicalreasoning, and cannot be compelled to follow any false, sophistric reasoningof another. In other words, as the Court in Edundson vs. Lugar Oil, stated,no person A (in this case a landlord) has the right to interfere with any other  person B’s individual or natural right of liberty unless it is proven thatPerson B is acting unreasonably, and that person A is acting reasonably, andin accordance with a rational or logically valid legitimate personal interest. Next, following Aristotelian Logic, what is true for me is reciprocally truefor others on the basis that the fallacies of hypocrisy and shifting ground,must logically be avoided by me. Of course, this is true of everyone else inrelation to others. If I have a individual or natural right of liberty, then

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->