Self interest and interest in self

     While discussing the subjective circumstances for justice, Rawls makes a distinction regarding self-interest that I thought a lot about in our tutorial. He notes that even though cooperation is advantageous due to generally similar needs, individuals still have their "own plans of life" (110). These individuals/subjective plans will inevitably lead to conflict. The distinction Rawls make is "although the interests advanced by these plans are not assumed to be interests in the self, they are interests of a self that regards ints conception of the good as worthy of recognition and that advances claims in its behalf as deserving satisfaction" (110). I see a form of self interest as the "not really just" kind in that its ends are the protection of advantages for the self and the other as simply a subjective view of the perception of the good. I think that some way to separate this "interest in self" from a human being would provide a useful hypothetical for what justice should look like as it more effectively accounts for subjective differences which do, in fact, exist, without being compromised by interest in the self.

    I also wanted to talk about justice over time. Rawls takes up a discussion of the obligation that those in the original position have to their descendants. Firstly, his theory of justice answers one part of the problem that other philosopher have struggled with being that of being born into society. Rawls's theory, however, solves this through the veil of ignorance by saying that whatever choice people under this vail would have made is a choice that anyone would make. So, a person born into a society would accept their current system of justice because it is what they would have accepted had they been in this fair decision making scenario which is as close to voluntary as you can get. 

    But, I think there is a bigger point about what justice would look like many generations down the line. The whole point of having agreed upon principles of justice is that they bind people. In a specific scenario, a person may not like how justice determines conflicts should be resolved, but it gives a sense of predictability. Part of its benefit is that it does not change. However, I suspect that notions of justice will change over many generations. If justice is to be decided upon by people (even hypothetical ones), Rawls is implying its not necessarily a universal law. I wonder how and if the principles of justice could change over time.