John Rawls raises three challenges – to which one can add a fourth challenge – to an impartial spectator account: (a) the impartial spectator is a utility-maximizing device that does not take seriously the distinction between persons; (b) the account does not guarantee that the principles of justice will be derived from it; (c) the notion of impartiality in the account is the wrong one, since it does not define impartiality from the standpoint of the litigants themselves; (d) the account would offer a comprehensive, rather than a political, form of liberalism. The narrow aim of the article is to demonstrate that Adam Smith's impartial spectator account can rise to Rawls's challenges. The broader aim is to demonstrate that the impartial spectator account offers the basis for a novel and alternative framework for developing principles of justice, and does so in the context of a political form of liberalism.

中文翻译：

---

综合自由主义还是政治自由主义？公正的旁观者与政治原则的正当性

约翰·罗尔斯（John Rawls）对公正的旁观者的叙述提出了三个挑战——人们可以在其中增加第四个挑战：(b) 该账户不保证正义原则会由此产生；(c) 陈述中的公正性概念是错误的，因为它没有从诉讼当事人本身的角度定义公正性；(d) 该帐户将提供一种全面的而非政治的自由主义形式。这篇文章的狭隘目的是证明亚当·斯密不偏不倚的旁观者叙述可以应对罗尔斯的挑战。