Abstract

In order for the Law of Peoples to be stable for the right reasons, Rawls must provide an unassailable explanation as to why decent hierarchical societies would adopt fair terms of cooperation and follow them willingly when what is reasonable for these societies and what is reasonable for liberal societies are arguably quite different. The reasonableness of hierarchical societies, where the internal design affords greater liberties and privileges for some over others, calls into question the moral commitments held by their representatives in the original position. In order for Rawls to validate the assumption of a commitment to equality for the representatives of hierarchical peoples, Rawls would have to assume that these representatives have a deep commitment to equality that supersedes all positions of privilege. The commitment to equality of these representatives in the original position is not a valid assumption and for this reason, the law of peoples is not stable for the right reasons and is in fact a modus vivendi .