Correspondence 

"A Theory of Justice" 

To the Editors: I have followed with 
great interest the discussion sparked 
by John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. 
Most of the debate would seem to 
hinge upon the difference between 
an absolute egalitarianism and "equal-
ity of opportunity." In his review of 
the book in Worldview (February) 
Mr. Alan Emdin almost entirely 
evades this central question. In one 
sense his change of pace is refresh-
ing, and certainly it is valuable to 

shave him note, as others have not, 
that Rawls's idea of how social val-
ues are formed is unrealistically dis-
tant from such elementary socializ-
ing influences as, for example, reli-
gion. At the same time, however, it 
is regrettable that Mr. Emdin fails to 
focus on Rawls's argument of what 
"ought to be." . . . 

Conflicting notions of equality 
. seem increasingly central to moral 

reflection in our society. I would 
hope that Mr. Emdin and others 
would address themselves to this is-
sue as it relates to the guiding imper-
atives of our Western moral, specifi-
cally religious, traditions. I believe 
the serious challenge to Rawls is not, 
as Mr. Emdin would have it, how he 
visualizes social formation but wheth-
er he is right in saying that equality 
rather than, for example, some Com-
mon Law notion of human rights is 
the linchpin of social justice. Ry fail-
ing to come to grips with Rawls's 
central contention, Emdin's review 
offers little more than a mildly inter-
esting footnote to this important dis-
cussion. 

E. L. Quittner 
South Bend, Ind. « 

Alan Emdin Responds: 

E. L. Quittner poses two criticisms 
of my review. It is charged that, al-
though I make a few interesting 
points about Rawls's notion of value 

formation, I neglect crucial recent 
debate on the relative merits of abso-
lute egalitarianism as opposed td 
equality of opportunity, and also 
that I do not come to grips with the 
question of what constitutes the 
"linchpin of social justice." 

Apparently Quittner and I travel 
in different circles, and this, I be-
lieve, accounts for our differing views 
of what discussion of Rawls's work 
hinges on. Perhaps the virtues of ab-
solute equality are a major topic of 
consideration in the professional 
journals of academic philosophers. 
If so, I am reaffirmed in my judg-
ment that one of Rawls's strong 
points is that through the notion of 
the original position and the consid-
eration of institutions he moves be-
yond what seems to me sterile debate 
over piecemeal philosophical abstrac-
tions. 

Exchanges I have been privy to 
have turned on why Rawls's book, 
appearing when it did, has been the 
object of such great attention. In my 
review I attempted to answer this by 
pointing to the work as the first effort 
at the creation of a comprehensive 
system which both overcomes the 
impasse positivistic philosophy and 
economics have created for the study 
of ethics and also incorporates the 
rigorous methods of analysis devel-
oped by welfare economists. Nearly 
half of my review is devoted to this 
task. 

Nor do I believe that I "fail to 
come to grips" with the constitution 
of the "linchpin of social justice." 
Quittner misinterprets points in my 
review addressed to exactly these 
matters. Quittner writes that Rawls's 
treatment of socialization is far from 
realistic, and so it is. But in criticiz-
ing the Rawlsian view of authority, 
religion and the Aristotelian "perfec-
tionism" of intellectual virtue, I indi-
cated my belief that these very 
things were "linchpins of social jus-
tice" and not just the neglected as-
pects of value formation Quittner 
makes them out to be. They are 
among the "guiding imperatives '•of 
our Western moral, specifically reli-
gious traditions." Indeed, if we are 
to believe Edward Corwin, they are 
the background of Anglo-Saxon Com-

mon Law as well. A book which 
treated them adequately would sure-
ly be a philosophic work of the first 
order, and thus would constitute a 
challenge to "Rawls's argument of 
what 'ought to b e ' " on the most seri-
ous level. My regrets that my re-
view is not such a work are at least 
as strong as Quittner's. Still, I be-
lieve that I have raised issues com-
pared to which argument over types 
of equality seems only "a mildly in-
teresting footnote." 

Israel and the West Bank 

To the Editors: It is easy to say that 
all Israeli factions seem agreed upon 
the necessity of "creating some sort 
of political entity on the West Bank" 
("Israeli Politics and the West Bank," 
Worldview, February), but Stephen 
Oren seems peculiarly insensitive to 
the fact that even this "concession" 
is emphatically on Israeli terms. In 
fact I doubt that any Israeli official 
close to the center of power enter-
tains the possibility of granting non-
Israelis any say in,- for example, the 
expansion of Jewish settlements in 
the conquered territories. There is, 
contrary to Mr. Oren's implication, 
no readiness to see a truly sovereign 
state established that would have 
control over its own relationship to 
the contorted "foreign policies" with-
in the Middle East. 

In so many essays such as Mr. 
Oren's one gets the false impression 
that Israeli leadership is prepared to 
be "reasonable." What is not men-
tioned is that reasonableness is de-
fined in terms of modifying prior 
outrageous policies. One does not 
have to accuse Israel of being a min-
ion of U.S. imperialism to recognize 

; the simple power realities by whiqh 
Israeli leadership perpetuates its op-
pression of its neighbors—all, of 
course, in the name of self-defense. 

Mr. Oren's admittedly informative 
article might have been further en-
hanced had he placed the West Bank 
issue into the larger context of the 
long-term prospects for Israel's sur-
vival in an Arab world. Is not the 

(continued on page 62) 

2