Key Arguments

• He introduces “a second possibility” of “principles which can be put in what I shall call a serial or lexical order,” defined as “an order which requires us to satisfy the first principle in the ordering before we can move on to the second, the second before we consider the third, and so on.”
• In such an order “A principle does not come into play until those previous to it are either fully met or do not apply,” so “A serial ordering avoids, then, having to balance principles at all; those earlier in the ordering have an absolute weight, so to speak, with respect to later ones, and hold without exception.”
• He models this as “analogous to a sequence of constrained maximum principles,” where “any principle in the order is to be maximized subject to the condition that the preceding principles are fully satisfied.”
• As an “important special case” he will “propose an ordering of this kind by ranking the principle of equal liberty prior to the principle regulating economic and social inequalities,” which “means, in effect, that the basic structure of society is to arrange the inequalities of wealth and authority in ways consistent with the equal liberties required by the preceding principle.”

Source Quotes

By emphasizing the role of justice and the special features of the initial choice situation, the priority problem may prove more tractable. A second possibility is that we may be able to find principles which can be put in what I shall call a serial or lexical order. 30 (The correct term is “lexicographical,” but it is too cumbersome.) This is an order which requires us to satisfy the first principle in the ordering before we can move on to the second, the second before we consider the third, and so on.

A second possibility is that we may be able to find principles which can be put in what I shall call a serial or lexical order. 30 (The correct term is “lexicographical,” but it is too cumbersome.) This is an order which requires us to satisfy the first principle in the ordering before we can move on to the second, the second before we consider the third, and so on. A principle does not come into play until those previous to it are either fully met or do not apply.

30 (The correct term is “lexicographical,” but it is too cumbersome.) This is an order which requires us to satisfy the first principle in the ordering before we can move on to the second, the second before we consider the third, and so on. A principle does not come into play until those previous to it are either fully met or do not apply. A serial ordering avoids, then, having to balance principles at all; those earlier in the ordering have an absolute weight, so to speak, with respect to later ones, and hold without exception.

A principle does not come into play until those previous to it are either fully met or do not apply. A serial ordering avoids, then, having to balance principles at all; those earlier in the ordering have an absolute weight, so to speak, with respect to later ones, and hold without exception. We can regard such a ranking as analogous to a sequence of constrained maximum principles.

We can regard such a ranking as analogous to a sequence of constrained maximum principles. For we can suppose that any principle in the order is to be maximized subject to the condition that the preceding principles are fully satisfied. As an important special case I shall, in fact, propose an ordering of this kind by ranking the principle of equal liberty prior to the principle regulating economic and social inequalities.

For we can suppose that any principle in the order is to be maximized subject to the condition that the preceding principles are fully satisfied. As an important special case I shall, in fact, propose an ordering of this kind by ranking the principle of equal liberty prior to the principle regulating economic and social inequalities. This means, in effect, that the basic structure of society is to arrange the inequalities of wealth and authority in ways consistent with the equal liberties required by the preceding principle.

As an important special case I shall, in fact, propose an ordering of this kind by ranking the principle of equal liberty prior to the principle regulating economic and social inequalities. This means, in effect, that the basic structure of society is to arrange the inequalities of wealth and authority in ways consistent with the equal liberties required by the preceding principle. Certainly the concept of a lexical, or serial, order does not offhand seem very promising.

Key Concepts

• A second possibility is that we may be able to find principles which can be put in what I shall call a serial or lexical order.
• This is an order which requires us to satisfy the first principle in the ordering before we can move on to the second, the second before we consider the third, and so on.
• A principle does not come into play until those previous to it are either fully met or do not apply.
• A serial ordering avoids, then, having to balance principles at all; those earlier in the ordering have an absolute weight, so to speak, with respect to later ones, and hold without exception.
• any principle in the order is to be maximized subject to the condition that the preceding principles are fully satisfied.
• ranking the principle of equal liberty prior to the principle regulating economic and social inequalities.
• the basic structure of society is to arrange the inequalities of wealth and authority in ways consistent with the equal liberties required by the preceding principle.

Context

Central section of §8, where Rawls introduces the key structural device of lexical ordering and indicates its substantive application in giving priority to equal liberty.