APA 6th Edition Rodin, D. (2003). Zašto Rawls nije kantovac?. Politička misao, 40 (1), 5-15. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/23198
MLA 8th Edition Rodin, Davor. "Zašto Rawls nije kantovac?." Politička misao, vol. 40, br. 1, 2003, str. 5-15. https://hrcak.srce.hr/23198. Citirano 16.12.2019.
Chicago 17th Edition Rodin, Davor. "Zašto Rawls nije kantovac?." Politička misao 40, br. 1 (2003): 5-15. https://hrcak.srce.hr/23198
Harvard Rodin, D. (2003). 'Zašto Rawls nije kantovac?', Politička misao, 40(1), str. 5-15. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/23198 (Datum pristupa: 16.12.2019.)
Vancouver Rodin D. Zašto Rawls nije kantovac?. Politička misao [Internet]. 2003 [pristupljeno 16.12.2019.];40(1):5-15. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/23198
IEEE D. Rodin, "Zašto Rawls nije kantovac?", Politička misao, vol.40, br. 1, str. 5-15, 2003. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/23198. [Citirano: 16.12.2019.]
Sažetak The author’s starting point is the argument that Rawls cannot be a Kantian, because he – unlike Kant – was faced with the pluralism of the contemporary innovative society, in which individuals are not divided into the existential winners and losers solely on the basis of different traditions but also of different innovations. Rawls thinks that this fact of pluralism may only be a posteriori politically regulated in a way that it is permanently cultivated to the level of political, moral and legal order, acceptable for citizens, which gives legitimacy to the inequalities among them. Individuals are thus linked into a political community by means of justice understood as fairness. In this type of justice, citizens allow for the inequalities because they live in uncertainty or vagueness, which the author considers to be conditio humana in the innovative society. Under such circumstances, the author concludes, fairness is an ability to cope with an unfamiliar injustice.