Why doesn’t the Golden Rule or Kant’s Moral Law or something like them offer a better argument? Segregationists, for example, would protest if they were suddenly treated accordingly. Frederick would not want his son to be a common solider, etc. People recognize fairness, which is why we justify inequality (for example), by saying it should come about fairly. I guess this comes closer to Rorty, since in small groups and families fairness is important, and when violated it causes problems.
Feb 15 2014 - 10:16am