Fairness in the thought of John Rawls and Auguste Comte

the article presents a comparison between some aspects of the socio-political theories of auguste comte and john rawls. its aim is to highlight certain elements that approximate and distance the two authors from one another in terms of political objectives and theoretical-methodological procedures, particularly on the basis of the comtean perspective. the result is surprising: applying the mutatis mutandis methodological clause, i.e., considering the different socio-political contexts, there are more elements that approximate rawls to comte than elements that distance them from one another. after the introduction, an argument in favour of comparison as an analytic resource is presented; next, some aspects of rawls's thought, then of comte's, are set out. i conclude with a comparative assessment of the two.