1) Nagel argues for an impartial point
of view. He criticizes Rawls perspective of legitimacy to be convergence of
separate individual commitments, while the common standpoint is defined by an
impartial position that can be justified by a neutral position. Does Nagel
understand individuals primarily as social beings and morality and justice as norms
that exists in relation? Does Nagel’s theory argues to consider both the
utility and the value of principles, where Rawls difference principle would be
too egalitarian?
2) On what ground is freedom as a liberal value defined? Nagel argues, that the objectivity of moral values is to a certain extend a matter of discourse. In case of moral standards of freedom as an universal norm, is this not shaped by those in power and therefore the definition of high-order values would be a reiteration of power?