It is impossible to objectively remove oneself from his life experiences. It doesn't matter if this is the right way to perform justice or not - it is impossible to perform justice in this manner anyway.
That which has been seen cannot be unseen.
That which has been heard cannot be unheard.
That which has been felt cannot be unfelt.
That which has been experienced cannot be unexperienced.
Not quite what I was looking for but in the right direction. I'm assuming Rawls would agree but when you expand the conversation to a large group these biases are minimized and as the group becomes larger and as knowledge progresses the model allows for evolution. The question is can you find a point in his argument that isn't adaptable and can be refuted with his own models inclusion of knowledge of psychology.
You're missing an apostrophe, and it confused me.
So you're saying that if everyone TRIES to be objective, then it is possible? A true democracy then... everyone votes, and the majority wins? That won't work either, because the majority isn't always right. The majority would vote that anyone who is more wealthy than 51% of the population is evil, and should give their money to the 51%. The 49% couldn't outvote them, so the 51% would win.
I have no idea what you're trying to get at with a "point in his argument that isn't adaptable and can be refuted with his own model's inclusion of knowledge of psychology."