Qs)I assume for one thing that there is a broad measure of agreement that principles of justice should be chosen under certain conditions (Rawls) Is it a f

One of such greatly influential political philosophers of the twentieth century was John Rawls, who is thought by many to be the most important political philosopher of his time in the whole English-speaking world. More specifically, Rawls, influenced by such liberal and legal theorists as Isaiah Berlin and Herbert L. A. Hart, is widely known as the author of the almost revolutionary work "A Theory of Justice" (1971) in which he erased disciplinary lines and elaborated views which resurrected the academic interest to political philosophy. In fact, Rawls obtained the unique position among modern political philosophers as he is often referred to by politicians and in the courts. One of the main achievements of Rawls was his formulation of the two famous principles of justice as a proper solution of problems of distributive justice, which is preoccupied with determination of justice in the field of the allocation of goods and benefits within a society (Talisse, 2001, pp.3-22). However, there is a criticism of the approach of Rawls which, among other things, claims that Rawls cannot prove all the assumptions on which he builds his theory of justice. Let us take a closer look at the Rawls` principles of justice, and try to see whether the mentioned objection to Rawls constitutes a fatal one for his theory of justice.
The main task of Rawls` "A Theory of Justice" was to offer a satisfying interpretation of the notion of political obligation under which citizens are compelled to follow the rules created by the state. While views of Rawls can be generally attributed to the rich social contract tradition, for him such a contract assumes a peculiar form as Rawls states that the social contract can be truly just if every member of society would agree with its terms without knowing beforehand which social position he or she would adopt. To prove his case, Rawls starts off his line of reasoning with mounting of a hypothetical case with which he attempts to show a possible