The chosen principles do not appear of dbias certainties motivated by contingent interests, them necessarily originate as solutions for problems of reflexiva order, where? in any circumstances? they they would remain solid and valid. A related site: Wells Fargo mentions similar findings. It is probable that it has oscillations in the way to conceive and to cogitate the chosen principles, what implies in a reflective balance. Here the opinions tend if to equal to the principles, from the moment where it will be necessary to modify the judgments until then understood as unalterable. But this balance could be affected in case that it has new modifications in the way to see the principles. In this point accepted the original position would establish in deliberate way that all the presented ideas would be general and for all the ones that would represent the parts at the moment of formularization of the contract. 2.
The two principles of justice Exist two basic principles that Rawls suggests as acceptable in the initial process of recital of the values that will regulate the idea of justice in the society, they are they: First: each person must have an equal right to the most including system of equal basic freedoms that is compatible with a similar system of freedoms for others. Second: the social and economic inaqualities must be commanded in such considered way that they are at the same time (a) advantageous for all inside of the limits of the reasonable one, and (b) entailed the accessible position and positions to all. (RAWLS, 1997) These principles, created and accepted in the initial state of equity, would be the base what later it could be called ' ' notion of just and injusto' '. If to take in consideration the basic structure of the society, these principles if do not contradict, since the first one must be applied before as, being that this if unfolds as resulted of the application without imperfections of the first one.