Timeless Ideas

Something of an open question on this, but I'm not quite understanding how Lebron can reject the process of moral reasoning to attain timeless principles, while simultaneously accepting other timeless principles, namely those he believes shame refers to. Lebron seems to set his argument in an attempt to establish a nonideal. In his words, his "aim is tot take the problem in view on its own terms and respond to it as the problem itself demands here and now." (5). He goes on to reject the overlapping consensus as ahistorical. But, at some level, his arguments seem to rest on the notion of certain principles, namely that everyone is due equal respect. Lebron simply takes these principles to be just on their own accord, which might make some sense as we're talking about values we would assume everyone would agree on. But to someone like Rawls, principles become legitimate precisely because they are timeless - they would be accepted by any reasonable person at any time. Lebron, though, wants to accept other principles he assumes are already legitimate and timeless, even though he thinks the original position has a major flaw. This leads to the situation where Lebron has simultaneously accepted certain principles (or, alternatively, people have accepted certain deep principles that can be exploited) while rejecting a scenario where they can be created. Perhaps Lebron doesn't have much of a problem here though. His theory is not as broad as Rawls, in the sense that it does not wish to redesign a basic structure or rethink justice. Rather, it seeks to look at issues of institutional practice and the failings of that practice. Since that's the case, his theory can afford to be much more narrow.