Between economics and philosophy: a reappraisal of the Rawls‒Harsanyi debate

Juan Carvajalino and Herrade Igersheim

Working Papers of BETA from Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg

Abstract: This article revisits the debate between John Rawls and John Harsanyi by drawing on newly explored archival materials. Traditionally viewed as a short-lived, technical disagreement of the 1970s over the rational criterion for choice under uncertainty—the maximin versus average utility rules—their exchange in fact spanned nearly four decades, from their first encounter in 1964 to the late 1990s. The paper reconstructs this dialogue to reveal its ethical and philosophical depth, showing that what began as a technical dispute gradually evolved into a confrontation over the moral foundations of justice. The paper traces four stages of this evolving relationship, emphasizing Harsanyi’s later overlooked “philosophical turn” and his continuing attempts to defend utilitarianism against Rawls’s egalitarianism. By revealing all the facets of their exchange, the study enriches our understanding of the modern dialogue between economics and philosophy and of the enduring opposition between utilitarian and egalitarian conceptions of social justice.

Keywords: John Rawls; John Harsanyi; Maximin; Utilitarianism; Social justice. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: B21 B31 D60 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2026/2026-07.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2026-07

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers of BETA from Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).