Grounding the Rawlsian Original Position with Universal Logic By Anthony 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 tradition of 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 Rawls grounds his political philosophy in the ideal construct of the Original Position, 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 use of the Original Position, arguing that the construct of the Original Position is not objectively grounded, and instead is based upon cultural relativism. I argue that the basic construct of the Original Position can be grounded in Universal Logical Positivism in a way which Rawls himself did not develop.

Starting with Concrete Logic, we can objectively see that Logic is Universally and cross-culturally valid. Universal Logic proves that it is impossible for an (A)pple to exist at the same time and in the same place as no(t) (A)apple. And, reasoning by analogy, we can also see that it is impossible 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 type of argument, or assertion, or statement, or action is based upon a (il)logical contradiction, that is, is based upon an illegal or false sophistric “reasoning.” Logically, from here we can see that each person has a natural or individual right of liberty to act in accordance with his or her or hae own logical reasoning, and cannot be compelled to follow any false, sophistric reasoning of 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 that Person B is acting unreasonably, and that person A is acting reasonably, and in accordance with a rational or logically valid legitimate personal interest. Next, following Aristotelian Logic, what is true for me is reciprocally true for 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 in relation to others. If I have a individual or natural right of liberty, then

logically, to avoid a charge of illegal sophistry, I must also recognize that everyone else, as a general rule, else has the same individual or natural right of liberty. The foregoing supports the notion of the Original Position, developed by John Rawls in his book “A Theory of Justice.” The Original Position is basically a construct which applies the principle of reciprocity, which is based upon the principle of avoiding the fallacies of hypocrisy and shifting ground. Moreover, logical reasoning gives us Sheriff’s Law, The Law of Logic, and Constitutional Law grounded in individual and natural rights which supports Rawls argument in “A Theory of Justice.” Moreover, the Law of Logic grounds both Property and Contract Law, as well as liberal economic theory based upon the model of two, rational and autonomous, and rationally self interested persons, with full information, and equal access to capital, bargaining for a good exchange in a fair market. Thus, the economic assumptions made by Rawls, in his book, “A Theory of Justice,” are, generally speaking, objectively grounded in logical positivist reasoning. Thus, we can now conclude that the general approach taken by John Rawls in his book, “The Theory of Justice,” is objectively grounded in logical positivist reasoning, and is therefore universally valid.