AUTHOR'S PROOF UNCORRECTED PROOF 1 2 3 4 Rawls and the Problem of Honour 5 Kevin W. Gray 6 Received: 11 November 2011 /Accepted: 6 December 2011 7 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 8 9 Abstract In this paper, I consider the difficult relationship between Rawls, religion 10 and the values that religious believers might consider important in order to lead the 11 good life. Contrary to many of Rawls’ defenders, I argue that at least some of the 12 values that religious citizens are likely to hold cannot be accounted for under Rawls’ 13 theory or under his conception of the good life. I argue that the model of goods which 14 Rawls takes to be part of a thin theory of the good is tied to his belief that under the 15 Original Position justice can be derived from calculations of self-interest alone. To 16 perform my critique, I consider the paradigmatic case of honour in so-called tradi- 17 tional societies. I argue that the way Rawls thematizes primary goods in A Theory of 18 Justice, including concepts like esteem, cannot account for the way honour manifests 19 itself inside traditional communities. I conclude the paper by considering how Rawls 20 might be able to defend his theory against my objection, by considering the relation- 21 ship between Rawls’ theory, and the rationalization and secularization of society. 22 Keywords Rawls . Honour . Religion . Habermas . Original Position 23 24 In this paper, I will consider the problematic relationship between John Rawls’ early 25 work and religion. 1 To put my thesis simply, I believe that in A Theory of Justice 26 Rawls takes too much for granted in his discussion of the values which he assumes 27 that all members of modern society possess. In particular, Rawls neglects to consider Philosophia DOI 10.1007/s11406-011-9347-0 1 At the outset, I should state clearly that while the examples I chose are informed by my work in the Middle East and Central Asia, but I do not think they are exclusive to any region or religion. To understand my criticism of A Theory of Justice in that way would greatly limit the scope of the objection I am developing. My criticism of Rawls would, with appropriate substitutions, hold in any other part of the world. I wish to thank the participants at the ‘Between Rawls and Religion’ conference held at LUISS University and John Cabot University in Rome, including Dr. Tom Bailey for his helpful comments, and the organizers of the Faculty colloquia at Georgetown Qatar and Yeditepe, and particularly Dr. Karl Widerquist and Dr. Fiona Tomkinson for their comments. K. W. Gray (*) International Studies, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates e-mail: kgray@aus.edu JrnlID 11406_ArtID 9347_Proof# 1 - 14/12/2011