JUSTICE, DIVERSITY, AND THE WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY

One unchanging feature of John Rawls' thought is that we theorize about well-ordered societies. Yet, once we introduce justice pluralism-the fact that reasonable people disagree about the nature and requirements of justice, something Rawls eventually admits is inevitable in liberal societies-then a well-ordered society as Rawls defines it is impossible. This requires we develop new models of society to replace the well-ordered society in order to adequately address such disagreements. To do so, we ought to remain faithful to those reasons Rawls has for introducing the idea of the well-ordered society in the first place. It is shown that two models that resemble closely Rawls' model of the well-ordered society but are also capable of dealing with justice pluralism do not perform well when judged against such criteria. Yet a new model of the well-ordered society-one that looks radically different from what Rawls originally imagined-does succeed.