What good is a theory of justice—in particular one that adopts a controversial stance on distributional matters as John Rawls' theory does—when after fifty years of exhaustive discussion there is still vigorous, reasoned disagreement regarding whether that theory is "correct"? Why try to articulate the correct theory of justice when, from an impartial perspective, no one theory is uniquely correct for all citizens?

This full text of this article will be available online nine months after its initial print publication. To read it now, please buy this issue in print or eBook format from our store, or in the new Independent Review app on iOS or Google Play, or on Magzter which offers digital access on smartphones, tablets, and web browsers.