In his book Liberalism and the Limits of
Justice, Sandel makes a clear, concise and very
convincing critique of Rawls' perception of the Self
in Theory of Justice. He disputes the idea that the self is prior to its ends, and shows why it cannot be so. He quickly exposes the faults in the theory that the personal attributes of individuals could ever be regarded as common assets to be divided for the good of the community. And most interestingly, Sandel brings out significant aspects of Rawls theory that contradict themselves and seem to show how even Rawls can't quite convince himself of the validity of his position.
For Sandel, the main problem with Rawls' conception of the Self is in his struggle to show that "the self is prior to the ends which are affirmed by it" (Rawls 560). Where Rawls question is given not as "Who am I?" but "What ends shall I choose?", Sandel insists that the question of "What ends shall I choose?" has already been given, and the most important question is indeed "how to discern in this clutter of possible ends what is me from what is mine" (Sandel 59). This means that to understand either theory we must discover how the Self is separate from, and connected to, its ends. We need answers to both of these concerns to avoid creating radically situated or radically disembodied subjects.
Rawls attempts to assert that there is no reason that persons should deserve any benefits that flow from his natural talents and attributes. "No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society" (Rawls 102). Any benefits that result should be divided for the good of the least fortunate, according to Rawls' difference principle. He even argues that any assets a person gains through his own effort are not his desert, for "the assertion that a man deserves the superior character that enables him to make the effort to cultivate his abilities is equally problematic; for his character depends in large part upon fortunate family and social circumstances for which he can claim no credit" (Rawls 104).
