Lexical order (ethics)

Lexical order (or lexicographical order) in ethics refers to the prioritization of principles or values in a strict hierarchical sequence, such that one principle must be fully satisfied before another can be considered. This concept is most notably employed in the political philosophy of John Rawls but has also been the subject of critique in discussions about secularism, pluralism, and public ethics.

In Rawlsian Justice

John Rawls introduces lexical order in his seminal work A Theory of Justice as a method of ranking principles of justice. The structure requires that:

• Equal basic liberties are secured for all.
• Fair equality of opportunity is ensured, but only after liberties are guaranteed.
• The difference principle allows inequalities only if they benefit the least advantaged, but only once the first two principles are satisfied.

This ordering means that no principle lower in the sequence can override a higher one, even for utilitarian gains. For instance, limiting basic liberties cannot be justified by the promise of improved outcomes for the disadvantaged.^[1] Rawls characterizes this as a "sequence of constrained maximum principles," a formulation suggesting parallels with mathematical concepts like Zorn's Lemma and the axiom of choice.^[2]

Despite the centrality of lexical order in his theory, Rawls acknowledges its limitations. He admits that "in general, a lexical order cannot be strictly correct", highlighting challenges such as environmental and animal ethics in a human-centered framework, and intergenerational justice.^[2] Nevertheless, Rawls argues that some form of ordering remains necessary, calling it part of "the formal constraints of the concept of rightness" (§23).^[2]

Application in bioethics

In biomedical and public health ethics, lexical ordering is one among several approaches to resolving conflicts between ethical principles. In the widely adopted "four-principles" model—beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and respect for autonomy—no fixed ranking is applied. This contrasts with lexical ordering, which dictates a rigid priority structure. Alternatives such as balancing theories are more common in biomedicine, although they may rely heavily on intuition and risk reflecting personal bias.^[3]

Critiques and alternatives in political ethics

The concept of lexical ordering has also been scrutinized in the context of secularism and multicultural political theory. In his critique of Akeel Bilgrami's formulation of secularism, legal scholar Jeremy Webber questions the utility of lexical ordering when applied to political ideals. Webber argues that treating political values as lexically prior to religious beliefs can obstruct dialogue and suppress valuable cultural perspectives.^[4]

Using cases such as the French hijab ban and the marginalization of Indigenous communities, Webber illustrates how a rigid application of secular principles can replicate colonial patterns of exclusion. He challenges Bilgrami's idea that religious belief must be excluded from shaping public norms, advocating instead for an ethic of engagement, wherein diverse belief systems are included in deliberative processes. According to Webber, genuine secularism does not mandate the imposition of state ideals but fosters inclusive decision-making through dialogue and mutual respect.^[2]

See also

• John Rawls
• A Theory of Justice
• Secularism
• Pluralism
• Bioethics