John Rawls
Paperback | Pages: 824 pages Rating: 3.94 | 10779 Users | 209 Reviews
Details Books Supposing A Theory of Justice
| Original Title: | A Theory of Justice |
| ISBN: | 0674017722 (ISBN13: 9780674017726) |
| Edition Language: | English |
Commentary In Pursuance Of Books A Theory of Justice
Since it appeared in 1971, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice has become a classic. The author has now revised the original edition to clear up a number of difficulties he and others have found in the original book.Rawls aims to express an essential part of the common core of the democratic tradition - justice as fairness - and to provide an alternative to utilitarianism, which had dominated the Anglo-Saxon tradition of political thought since the nineteenth century. Rawls substitutes the ideal of the social contract as a more satisfactory account of the basic rights and liberties of citizens as free and equal persons. "Each person," writes Rawls, "possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override." Advancing the ideas of Rousseau, Kant, Emerson, and Lincoln, Rawls's theory is as powerful today as it was when first published.
Identify Appertaining To Books A Theory of Justice
| Title | : | A Theory of Justice |
| Author | : | John Rawls |
| Book Format | : | Paperback |
| Book Edition | : | Original Edition |
| Pages | : | Pages: 824 pages |
| Published | : | March 31st 2005 by Belknap Press (first published January 1st 1971) |
| Categories | : | Philosophy. Politics. Nonfiction. Law |
Rating Appertaining To Books A Theory of Justice
Ratings: 3.94 From 10779 Users | 209 ReviewsAssessment Appertaining To Books A Theory of Justice
This book, assigned for Dave Schweickart's Social and Political Philosophy course, was far and away the most important book I read while studying philosophy at Loyola University Chicago. As usual, while only part of it was required for class, I read the whole of it.Rawls' book is important for, among other reasons, being a example of applied ethics relevant to everyone, everywhere, in situations ranging from family politics to constitutional conventions. His approach is substantially Kantian andI read this ... gosh, about fifteen years ago now. Something about it always bugged me. Rawls is trying to build on Kant's theory of ethics. Kant's thing was classic Enlightenment: trying to divorce morality from Christianity. Rawls' development is the veil of ignorance - essentially a social contract based on the Golden Rule. The question is, what's your foundation for doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? Rawls doesn't argue from Christianity, of course, nor natural law, but
On page 432 of this hefty work, Rawls writes:"Imagine someone whose only pleasure is to count blades of grass in various geometrically shaped areas such as park squares and well-trimmed lawns. He is otherwise intelligent and actually possesses unusual skills, since he manages to survive by solving difficult mathematical problems for a fee. The definition of the good forces us to admit that the good for this man is indeed counting blades of grass, or more accurately, his good is determined by a
While I don't subscribe to John Rawls theories I have to recognize the genius that he is. Changed the way I look at things, but not my opinion of what social justice really is.
What strikes me most as a non-philosopher reading this book is what Rawls doesnt talk about. Libertarian ideas, the staple of American political and social discourse, receive no attention as such in this book. To the extent that libertarianism factors in at all, Rawls dismisses it so peremptorily he practically laughs at it. Yet his oblique approach does take on its precepts, as Ill mention later.A Theory of Justice takes up a problem that goes back to the Enlightenment: If rights inure to
John Rawls presents the reader with a thought experiment based on the social contract, original position, and his very own "veil of ignorance." So this thought experiment is a hypothetical situation that is really just a very dull gambling scheme where the players must make decisions about the structure of society. The thing that's supposed to be so revolutionary is that these players aren't aware of their position in society and they don't really know anything about their own identity, except
Ill start with just a word of complaint. There is no reason at all why an intelligent person like John Rawls should write so badly. One does not expect Mark Twain, George Orwell or even J K Galbraith. However, Rawls could have put in some examples, so that the reader did not sink into a bog of abstract nouns, and it would have been good if he had injected an occasional flash of wit to dissuade the reader from falling off his chair. This having been said, the book is useful and interesting. It
0 Comments