Book Description

This last book by the late John Rawls, derived from written lectures and notes for his long-running course on modern political philosophy, offers readers an account of the liberal political tradition from a scholar viewed by many as the greatest contemporary exponent of the philosophy behind that tradition.

Rawls's goal in the lectures was, he wrote, "to identify the more central features of liberalism as expressing a political conception of justice when liberalism is viewed from within the tradition of democratic constitutionalism." He does this by looking at several strands that make up the liberal and democratic constitutional traditions, and at the historical figures who best represent these strands--among them the contractarians Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau; the utilitarians Hume, Sidgwick, and J. S. Mill; and Marx regarded as a critic of liberalism. Rawls's lectures on Bishop Joseph Butler also are included in an appendix. Constantly revised and refined over three decades, Rawls's lectures on these figures reflect his developing and changing views on the history of liberalism and democracy--as well as how he saw his own work in relation to those traditions.

With its clear and careful analyses of the doctrine of the social contract, utilitarianism, and socialism--and of their most influential proponents--this volume has a critical place in the traditions it expounds. Marked by Rawls's characteristic patience and curiosity, and scrupulously edited by his student and teaching assistant, Samuel Freeman, these lectures are a fitting final addition to his oeuvre, and to the history of political philosophy as well.

Customer Reviews (3)

Great
This is an excellent set of lectures that give a fresh and
fascinating insight into the ideas of various political
philosophers. But what's important here is that the context for
Rawls's own ideas become more apparent, and this heritage from
these thinkers makes the enterprise of his own work appear deeper and
more meaningful. Don't miss this one.

Useful
This very good book is a well edited transcript of Rawls' lecture notes from his political philosophy course.The heart of the book is a series of lectures on major contributors to social contract theory - Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau.These are clear, insightful, and sympathetic discussions of these thinkers with Rawls emphasizing the role of each philosopher's response to his contemporary problems in formulating their ideas.Rawls discusses as well some other thinkers not part of this tradition, Hume and JS Mill for utilitarianism, and Marx as representing a view completely outside the liberal tradition.Not surprisingly, aspects of each writer that Rawls found particularly interesting and important in formuation of his own distinguished contribution to the social contract tradition emerge from these discussions.This is particularly clear of his sympathetic discussions of Rousseau and particularly JS Mill.In Rawls presentation, Mill, not strictly a member of the social contract tradition, provides a progenitor of Rawls concept of public reason in the formulation of social institutions.As a plus, there are also transcripts of lectures on the important but lesser known Henry Sidgwick and Joseph Butler.
In his primary work, Rawls is not always easy to read.These lectures, however, are generally lucid.

Here is Rawls' context according to Rawls
As the editor of this volume notes, "One great benefit of these lectures is that they reveal how Rawls conceived of the history of the social contract tradition, and suggest how he saw his own work in relation to that of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant, and to some degree Hobbes as well" (pg. x).Rawls was reluctant to publish these lectures: "It was only after he was prevailed upon to publish his 'Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy'...that he agreed to allow his lectures on the history of political philosophy to be published as well" (pg. xv).
Rawls says his goal in these lectures is to "try to identify the more central features of liberalism as expressing a political conception of justice when liberalism is viewed from within the tradition of democratic constitutionalism.One strand in this tradition, the doctrine of the social contract, is represented by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau; another strand, that of utilitarianism, is represented by Hume and J.S. Mill; whereas the socialist, or social democratic strand, is represented by Marx, whom I consider largely as a critic of liberalism" (pg.xvii). Rawls goes on to admit that his approach "do[es] not present a balanced introduction to the political and social philosophy" (pg. xviii).
The "Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy" are, more specifically, a history of modern contractual political philosophy.These lectures will provide added clarity to the tensions between his book A Theory of Justice and his Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.For example, Michael Sandel's, whose appraisal of Rawls works mostly off of "A Theory of Justice" alone, wrote in his book Liberalism and the Limits of Justice that Rawls offers "deontology with a Humean face" which entails, according to Sandel, that Rawls doctrine "justice is the first virtue of social institutions" a teleology based an a metaphysical notion of the self which is the exact thing Rawls wanted to avoid; Sandel says, "teleology to the contrary, what is most essential to our personhood is not the ends we choose but our capacity to choose them.And this capacity is located in a self which must be prior to the ends it chooses."Thus Sandel takes offense against Rawls' Kantian style distinctions like "original position," behind a "veil of ignorance."
However, with "Justice as Fairness" and other writings (e.g. Kantian Constructivism) Rawls became more clear that there is no noncircular argument for democratic ideas; he says in "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement," that, "since justice as fairness is intended as a political conception of justice as a democratic society, it tries to draw solely upon basic intuitive ideas that are embedded in the political institutions of a democratic society and the public traditions of their interpretation."
Rawls shows in these lectures on the history of philosophy how his philosophy is sufficiently historical and contingent to avoid much overworked metaphysics: "the same effect as that of a veil of ignorance may result from a combination of other elements.Thus, rather than exclude information, we can allow people to know whatever they now know and yet make the contract binding in perpetuity and suppose the parties to care about their descendants, indefinitely into the distant future.In protecting their descendent's as well as themselves, they face a situation of great uncertainty.Thus, roughly the same arguments, somewhat modified, pertain as with a thick veil of ignorance" (pg. 19; see also footnote 7 pg, 269).

These lectures, however, are not so much about Rawls' theory of justice.Rawls writes charitably about others throughout, when he does criticize it is insightful.These lecture notes are surprisingly detailed at times, with footnotes and full citations.A benefit for researchers will be the generous index at the book's end. ... Read more

Book Description

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.

Customer Reviews (52)

very fine about justice in no justice world ....
This is not for me (also I'm lawyer), is for my daughter who study philosophy at University of Buenos Aires and will learn the book when we arrive home next Jan 22.

Accessible and important development in liberal thought
A Theory of Justice is surprisingly accessible, even to those of us without extensive training in philosophy.Rawls briefly examines two of the most influential Western liberal philosophers (Locke and Mill), and then proceeds to construct his own Theory which builds on Locke and Mill while solving for some of the deficiences in each.

As Rawls admitted, the gist of his Theory can be gleaned from the first part of the book, though the book reads easily enough that one should be able to get through the whole thing fairly quickly.

I highly recommend this book to those who think of philosophy as convoluted jargon written long ago by men in powdered wigs and robes, as well as to those who are unsure of the philosophical basis for much modern liberal political thought.A remarkably accessible and important development in liberal thought.

The Impossible Attempt of Reconciling the Ideal with the Realistic
The amount of praise given to this work does not surprise me given that there is a widespread, yet subtle, socialist movement in America as well as in Europe.Despite this, the book is a failed attempt at reconciling the ideal with reality.Rawls commits one of the many age-old flaws of collectivism, attempting to force morality on immoral beings. Rawls' entire work is fundamentally flawed in that the hypothetical situation from which the entire theory relies, selectively allows certain knowledge, assumptions, etc. while conveniently eliminating others.For instance, empirical evidence that shows capitalism outperforms other economic systems cannot be known in the original position.This is profound when one considers that we live in a hostile world that requires nations to invest in security of which economic power is imperative.Thus, capitalism may be a necessary injustice in order to safeguard liberal democracy.If we compare the human condition prior to capitalism, one can see that perhaps a collectivist system that may contribute to capitalism's downfall is immoral, if it leads us back in this direction.Consequentalism perhaps?Despite this, the people in the original position cannot have this knowledge.Therefore, information that is direly relevant to the construction of a social system in a hostile world cannot be used in determining its structure.Somehow though, the people do understand the important of the right to vote, equality, etc. This is absurd and impractical.Rationale beings need to analyze as much information as is available and pertinent to any decisions they make.Rawls continuously attempts to explain his "tweaks" as rationale but it is obvious that they are all implemented in order to discount human nature and proceed in theoretical terms.On a side note, Rawls' first principle calls for the right to vote, what would his state do if citizens began to vote for a more capitalistic system that defied his "justice"?Iron fist?Nevertheless, it is quite obvious what Rawls is attempting here.In a hypothetical situation where we all have to fear being born without intelligence, strength, status etc. we will take the safe route and ensure ourselves the highest index of goods.This may be true, or it may not (human nature seems to embrace risk taking) however this situation is irrelevant because of its exclusion of relevant information.Hobbes for instance accepted human nature and the potential for a wide array of circumstances in his hypothetical Natural Condition.While Rawls may have some strong arguments in declaring that his two principles are the epitome absolute justice, this does not mean they are practical in a hostile world.Essentially, what Rawls is saying is that none of us deserved to be born intelligent, responsible, hard working, but that we were simply lucky in the natural lottery.Because of this arbitrary distribution, he believes that we all must compensate for those unfortunate souls that were born unintelligent, lazy, and perhaps even immoral!I'd admonish Rawls not to attempt applying his insane reasoning to the criminal justice system (Poor, unfortunate murderer).If Rawls believes that the laziest, dumbest, and most immoral person still deserves a living wage despite not working, he has contradicted himself in that this justifies slavery, forcing individuals to work for other individuals without compensation.This simply cannot be justice as "fairness".Nevertheless, I'd recommend it to all free market advocates simply to strengthen their positions.As a warning however, be prepared for a work that lacks brevity, organization, coherence, and most importantly, reality.

Comic reviews
I suppose one of the great attributes of the internet is that it allows the juxtaposition of the good, the bad and the ugly. Where else could one find reviews of one of the twentieth century's towering works that variously describe it as a recipe for a police state, an incitement to theft, or as written by someone with no understanding of philosophy (my personal favourite - thanks Adrian!)

Essential
Rawls clearly sucks in great chunks of political thought - Kantianism, Utilitarianism, free market capitalism, utopian socialism, the Enlightenment idea of human progress in this capacious work. At the crux of his thought is the difference principle - the notion that inequalities can only be justified if they benefit the least well off.

Whatever you make of his theory, it can't be ignored. Anyone even remotely interested in 20th Century Liberal thought must consult A Theory of Justice, as it is the precursor to so much that has been written in the last 35 years. Check out any political journal and there will still be several articles anually which assess some part of Rawls' legacy.

In the 1970s, when Rawls' book came out, many people thought he had cracked liberal thought. Since then OPEC crises, divisions over the welfare state, the problem of benefit traps, pension funding shortfalls and a whole menangerie of other problems have beset contemporary liberalism. But to go back to a brave, well throught out articulation of one great thinker's view of liberal equality, seek out Rawls. ... Read more

Book Description
John Rawls was one of the most important political philosophers of our time, and promises to be an enduring figure over the coming decades. His Theory of Justice (1971) has had a profound impact across philosophy, politics, law, and economics. Nonetheless Rawlsian theory is not easy to understand, particularly for beginners, and his writing can be dense and forbidding. Thomas Pogge's short introduction (originally published in German) gives a thorough and concise presentation of the main outlines of Rawls's theory, introduces biographical information when necessary, and draws links between the Rawlsian enterprise and other important positions in moral and political philosophy. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Great Introduction
This book has been a great introduction to Rawls and his Theory of Justice.As a non-professional this book provided for me a great overview of the major important parts of the theory.It also provides a set of critiques brought on by others and by the author himself.Most objections to portions of the theory are addressed but Pogge has offered others that are still open to discussion.The book covers not just the Theory of Justice but the restatement and current topics relating to the theory.All-in-all a very good read. ... Read more

Book Description

This book continues and revises the ideas of justice as fairness that John Rawls presented inA Theory of Justice but changes its philosophical interpretation in a fundamental way. That previous work assumed what Rawls calls a "well-ordered society," one that is stable and relatively homogenous in its basic moral beliefs and in which there is broad agreement about what constitutes the good life. Yet in modern democratic society a plurality of incompatible and irreconcilable doctrines -- religious, philosophical, and moral -- coexist within the framework of democratic institutions. Recognizing this as a permanent condition of democracy, Rawls asks how a stable and just society of free and equal citizens can live in concord when divided by reasonable but incompatible doctrines?

This edition includes the essay "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited," which outlines Rawls' plans to revisePolitical Liberalism, which were cut short by his death.

"An extraordinary well-reasoned commentary onA Theory of Justice...a decisive turn towards political philosophy."

--Times Literary Supplement

Customer Reviews (8)

Wonderful!
Very interesting and orginal book. It's arrived very fast. Thank you.
Alessandro Mussini - Genova

A final Revision
Rawls has finally brought his powerful project of sociological and political philosophy to a conclusion with insights he may not have expected when he first published Political Liberalism in 1993.
The inclusion of his 'Reply to Habermas', after having also read Habermas' critique, helped him and specially me to understand the issues raised in that exchange and to enjoy following them. The inclusion also of 'The Idea of Public Reason Revisited' is very worthwhile, as it maps out the amendments he had started to make to Political Liberalism that had been cut short by his death.

Where is the foreword by Martha Nussbaum?
Where is the foreword by Martha Nussbaum?
I can not find in the hardcover expanded edition.

A philosophical gem about public justification
"A Theory of Justice" presented a conception of justice (justice as fairness) in the social contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant. In "Political Liberalism" Rawls corrects an oversight in Justice as Fairness; he attempts to apply the idea of toleration to political philosophy by recognizing the fact of reasonable pluralism. Caution: Meant only for those who wish to understand political philosophy.

Rawls' Thought Experiment
Imagine that the U.S.A. has decided to re-found itself, and you have been elected by a large geographical constituency as one of the founding fathers who must negotiate the principles for a new Constitution; further imagine that you are similarly elected to the Constitutional Convention to draft the new constitution under these principles, the Legislature which translates this constitution into law, and the Supreme Court which interprets this law in the light of experience.

You must do your duty by the people who have elected you and the generations to follow, but your electorate has no specific social character and your only mandate is to found a just constitution which will provide stable conditions for social cooperation and a well-ordered society.

How will you conduct yourself in negotiations with your fellow nation-founders? What kind of reasoning can you rely upon? You have your beliefs, but the others hold to different beliefs. And you are going to have to justify your actions to your constituency which is made up of all kinds of people, with all kinds of beliefs and all kinds of interests. You are going to have to explain yourself in a way which will seem reasonable to people who may not share your beliefs and be acceptable to those who do share your beliefs.

This is the thought experiment which John Rawls invites his readers to conduct. Rawls argues that ever since Catholicism and Protestantism fought each other to a standstill in Renaissance Europe, and the separation of Church and State was accepted as unavoidable, "reasonable pluralism" has become a fact of life for modern societies, and a fact which should be welcomed. He argues that if you conduct such a thought experiment, then you would have to come up with a conception of political liberalism something like that which he develops in his own thought experiment written up as Theory of Justice (1971) and more recently, Political Liberalism (1995).

Whether to endorse slavery, free market capitalism, democratic socialism or recreate a landed aristocracy, it is up to the "parties" to decide in due course, on the basis of the founding principles they decide, but given that the constitution must be defensible in terms which will be counted reasonable by the populace at large, Rawls is confident that such a thought experiment would come up with some kind of political liberalism. Rawls regards the relations of production as a secondary question which can be sorted out in due course, once the institutions of representative democracy and the judiciary have been settled and the citizens can legislate the social system.

In Rawls' books this thought experiment is called the "original position" though Rawls describes it in slightly different terms. Rather than supposing one is elected from large geographical electorates, Rawls proposes a hypothetical "veil of ignorance" so that the delegates do not know the social status of those that they represent nor what social position they may occupy in the state to be founded. Otherwise, his thought experiment pretty much matches the current US Constitution, barring political lobbyists, big business control of election campaigns and the naked play of self-interest within the institutions of really existing democracy.

Thus Rawls does much the same as Kant when he re-invented the Revealed Religion of the 18th century Lutheran Church by means of Reason, and Hegel when he set out to discover what was rational in the reality of early 19th century Prussia, but, it has to be said, in a way which is commensurate with a democratic republic of the 20th century, as a "self-standing" conception, limited to that which could be justified from the standpoint of any comprehensive metaphysical, moral or religious doctrine.

Like Kant and Hegel, Rawls does not validate everything that exists in the present-day U.S.A. as rational; he holds that the high cost of US election campaigns which ensures the restriction of nomination of candidates to the very rich, and the lack of an adequate health service and social safety net which ensures that a substantial proportion of the population cannot pursue the good life, are contrary to the requirements of justice. Nevertheless, for Rawls it is the constitution which decides the distribution of wealth and power, not the other way around.

The "original position" which Rawls characterises as a "representation device," is used to argue for "justice as fairness" as a candidate for an "overlapping consensus" "for the right reasons," which can withstand the test of "public reason" by "rational" and "reasonable" citizens who count one another as "free and equal," as a "self-standing" "political" conception, as opposed to a "comprehensive doctrine," and thus create the basis for a society as a "well-ordered system of social cooperation". ... Read more

Book Description

The premier political philosopher of his day, John Rawls, in three decades of teaching at Harvard, has had a profound influence on the way philosophical ethics is approached and understood today. This book brings together the lectures that inspired a generation of students--and a regeneration of moral philosophy. It invites readers to learn from the most noted exemplars of modern moral philosophy with the inspired guidance of one of contemporary philosophy's most noteworthy practitioners and teachers.

Central to Rawls's approach is the idea that respectful attention to the great texts of our tradition can lead to a fruitful exchange of ideas across the centuries. In this spirit, his book engages thinkers such as Leibniz, Hume, Kant, and Hegel as they struggle in brilliant and instructive ways to define the role of a moral conception in human life. The lectures delineate four basic types of moral reasoning: perfectionism, utilitarianism, intuitionism, and--the ultimate focus of Rawls's course--Kantian constructivism. Comprising a superb course on the history of moral philosophy, they also afford unique insight into how John Rawls has transformed our view of this history.

Customer Reviews (1)

a fascinating collection of lectures
One can see why John Rawls rejuvenated interest in moral philosophy -- this book is not only a beautifully written, but also a well organized collection of lectures on moral philosophy. Yes, all the big names are here -- Kant, Hegel, Leibnitz & Hume -- entire sections devoted to each. Utilitarianism, constructivism, intuitionism and perfectionism are all studied carefully as the various moral philosophies produced by these thinkers.

A warning, though: don't leap into this book as a "Moral Philosophy for Dummies" kind of guide. Although you don't have to be a guru, you need to have already read a bit on the subject in order to savour the delights of this book. I myself am taking my first (very wobbly) steps into a field which attempts, as the cover of the book says, to "define the role of a moral conception in human life." ... Read more

Amazon.com
Few philosophers have made as much ofa splash with a single book as John Rawls did with the 1971 publication of A Theory of Justice. Thirty years later, Justice as Fairness rearticulates the main themes of his earlier work and defends it against the swarm of criticisms it has attracted. Throughout the book, Rawls continues to defend his well-known thought experiment in which an "original position"--a sort of prenatal perspective ignorant of our race, class, and gender--provides the basis for formulating ethical principles that result in a harmonious liberal state. In addition, he supplies carefully worked-out responses and, in some cases, reformulations of his theory. Those coming to Rawls for the first time will find a lucid portrayal of his position; those embroiled in the ongoing debate will encounter a closely argued and subtle rejoinder to his adversaries. Readers will be pleased that the daunting volumes of Rawls's previous work have been distilled to a digestible 214 pages. --Eric de Place Book Description

This book originated as lectures for a course on political philosophy that Rawls taught regularly at Harvard in the 1980s. In time the lectures became a restatement of his theory of justice as fairness, revised in light of his more recent papers and his treatise Political Liberalism (1993). As Rawls writes in the preface, the restatement presents "in one place an account of justice as fairness as I now see it, drawing on all [my previous] works." He offers a broad overview of his main lines of thought and also explores specific issues never before addressed in any of his writings.

Rawls is well aware that since the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, American society has moved farther away from the idea of justice as fairness. Yet his ideas retain their power and relevance to debates in a pluralistic society about the meaning and theoretical viability of liberalism. This book demonstrates that moral clarity can be achieved even when a collective commitment to justice is uncertain.

Customer Reviews (4)

A great work of political philosophy
Rawls has done a marvelous job condensing the theory first presented in his massive A Theory of Justice into 200 lucid, succint, beautifully-argued pages.

Since the work is essentially a restatement, any review must take into account the effectiveness of that which was restated.For this, I would like to mention one area that Rawls ammended; subsequently, I would like to comment on how this change provided a complete new hermeneutical framework for the book.

At its core, the theory proposed by Rawls is based on a Kantian understanding of human persons and human freedom.Any familiar with Kant's political philosophy will remember the concept of the 'transcendental self', the self that is so completely free of human encumberances and entanglements that he is actually and literally free.This person literally has an autonomous free will and consequently has the capacity to be completely self-legislating.This is, of course, necessary if a person is to abide by the categorical imperative.Kant believes that a person cannot be free unless his will--his capacity to choose--is grounded in something pre-empirical.Rawls seems to believe this too.However, he understands that the idea of the 'trascendental self' is so shrouded in the obscurity of German Idealism as to be unhelpful for the average person.So, he sets out to bring the self to the earth and give it an imaginable, even a empirical, basis.And this is the function of the original position: to bring Kant's 'transcendental self' to the earth and provide a basis for it.This should be kept in mind throughout the reading.

While I enoyed the book thoroughly, I have a number of issues.First, Rawls himself says that the work can be read independent of any prior knowledge, and I take this to be true.Nonetheless, reading Justice as Fairness without preliminary familiarity with A Theory of Justice is bound to make the reading considerably more difficult.The reasons for this are many, the most notable being that Justice as Fairness is a restatement of a theory presented in an earlier work.Its job, essentially, is to fill gaps, answer arguments, and provide clarification that lacked in the original version (not to be confused with the 'original position').While Rawls alludes to the problems he intends to fix, it's almost impossible to fully grasp without a cursory understanding of A Theory of Justice.

In sum, the work is an excellent piece of analytical philosophy, one that is sure to be around for a while.Nonetheless, I would encourage anyone ready to dig into it to to read--or at least become familiar with--A Theory of Justice.

Adam Glover

Culmination of a half century's work on political philosophy
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Rawls' theory of justice, almost all contemporary moral and political philosophy takes place in its shadow. If not for A Theory of Justice, generations of grad students would still indulge in tired debates over the meaning of Kant's categorical imperative and whether analytic philosophy merely defines the words we use to talk about philosophy. Luckily, this was not the case and we now have this book that expresses the most refined exposition of Rawls' views on justice to date. Attempting to address the criticisms leveled by Sandel, Walzer, Habermas, and others at his initial theory, Justice as Fairness integrates the concepts of "reasonable pluralism" and "stability for the right reasons" (the core concerns of Political Liberalism, although not in those words) articulated in articles scattered throughout journals over a span of three decades with the comprehensive philosophical doctrine in A Theory of Justice. Whether he succeeds in fully rebutting their objections is certainly up for debate, but Justice as Fairness should be essential reading for anybody interested in the philosophical underpinnings of a liberal, property-owning democracy.

That said, I would agree with the previous reviewer that a reader should at least be conversant in Rawls' ethical theory as described in A Theory of Justice to get the most out of this book. However, to those uninterested in the evolution of his thought and how its shortcomings have been repaired, Justice as Fairness is still a momentous work and will probably be used in introduction to ethics or political philosophy classes everywhere.

An obligatory note, since another reviewer is certain to mention Nozick: Nozick eventually became convinced that the Lockean proviso of justice in acquisitional holdings did not possess the requisite stability that would ensure that liberties owed to free and equal persons would be preserved and recanted some of the conclusions in Anarchy, Utopia, and State. As for Hayek's brilliant works, nobody seriously disagrees with his thesis that central economic planning leads inevitably to abuses as state oversteps individual liberties and that the mechanism of prices in a free market is the best aggregator and distributor of preferences. I just don't see what this has to do with libertarianism. Hayek is too fine a thinker to be shoehorned into such a confining box.

Profound
Rawls set himself the difficult task of accomplishing for political philosophy what Kant attempted for moral philosophy; developing a systematic logical rationale for an intuitively attactive body of thought that raises this body of thought to new levels.Kant attempted to find a rational basis for the Pietist Christian ethics that he grew up with; Rawls attempts to find a rational basis for modern democratic polities.Both Kant and Rawls struggle not merely to rationalize existing arrangements and beliefs but to extract the best features of these intuitively attractive systems, to place these features on coherent and rational foundations, and to logically derive important new features of these systems from the described foundations.Rawls made this project his life's work.His output includes his magisterial 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, which set out most of the basis of his theory, the subsequent Political Liberalism, which introduced important qualifications into his scheme, and a large number of essays.Justice as Fairness is an attempt to summarize his views at the end of his remarkably productive career.This book is the best way available to enter Rawls's work in its final state.Having said that, I have to acknowledge some substantial drawbacks of Justice as Fairness.Rawls is not a gifted writer and this book derives to a large extent from lecture notes from one of his courses.Rawls has apparently been ill in recent years and this book was not completed by him.This is doubly unfortunate because Rawls's extended thoughts on some the issues discussed would be worth reading.The last couple of sections of the book are relatively sketchy, reflecting his inability to flesh them out.Since this book is an effort to abstract thousands of pages of prior writing, it is still rather dense.Still, because of the importance of Rawls's ideas, this book is very welcome and the reading public owes a debt of gratitude to Erin Kelly, the editor of this book.

Rawls espouses an ingenious social contract theory, an intellectual device in which we are asked to imagine the basis for government behind a "veil of ignorance".This "original position' prevents us from knowing what our position would be in the new regime or even from knowing what our native endowments (intelligence, heatlth, etc.) would be.In this situation, Rawls proposes that we would rationally proceed to developing a society where certain civil and property rights are guaranteed and have priority, where basic institutions are constructed to permit equal opportunity and certain minimum guarantees for education, health care, and economic support.Rawls construes his system as requiring the development of a "property owning democracy" in which basic institutions are constructed to prevent the development of large concentrations of wealth and political power.Rawls' system does not ban inequality but he insists on the existence of the difference principle, a rule that structural inequalities are permitted only if they rebound in some way to the advantage of the less advantages.An important modification of A Theory of Justice that Rawls introduced in Political Liberalism is the emphasis on pluralism and a reduction in some ways of the scope of his system.Rawls points out that modern democracies are pluralistic and contain many who legitimately disagree about the ends of society.Since Rawls original conception of political society can be construed as sponsoring a complete moral system (one of its attractions fo many of his followers, Rawls modified his ideas to insist that his scheme is restricted to political issues.This is a stronger scheme in many ways because it allows Rawls to argue that by restricting the scope of his system, it actually enfranchises citizens to pursue their own diverse ideas of ultimate good.

Rawls' ideas have been and will be debated vigorously.Many will object that despite his effort to narrow the scope of his system to political ideas, it still has important aspects of a complete moral doctrine.For example, in this book, Rawls himself points out that his system has signficant impact on the organization of family life.The difference principle has always been controversial and will continue to be so.Rawls himself points out one problem.He argues that it would not greatly impair economic efficiency but this may not be true. Indeed, I suspect that a property owning democracy, even if tenable, would be less efficient than a modern capitalist welfare state and consequently such a state can arise only after the development of capitalist welfare states.I suspect that one of the reason's Rawls wanted to produce this book is that he hoped a more accessible version of his ideas would spur the development what he regards as a more just world.

Second time around
Exactly a year later and after a second reading, I'm happy to revise my two star signal that this book might not stand alone. I'm now happy to give it the full praise it deserves.Rawls is a rigorous, systematic thinker who demands a focused and patient reader with a copious memory.Nevertheless, this restatement of pathbreaking earlier work sets a model for generous consideration and cogent response to the best objections raised over three decades by the most competent critics any author could desire. If you only have time to read one book by the foremost political philosopher of our time, read this one several times. ... Read more

Book Description

This book consists of two parts: the essay "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited," first published in 1997, and "The Law of Peoples," a major reworking of a much shorter article by the same name published in 1993. Taken together, they are the culmination of more than fifty years of reflection on liberalism and on some of the most pressing problems of our times by John Rawls.

"The Idea of Public Reason Revisited" explains why the constraints of public reason, a concept first discussed in Political Liberalism (1993), are ones that holders of both religious and non-religious comprehensive views can reasonably endorse. It is Rawls's most detailed account of how a modern constitutional democracy, based on a liberal political conception, could and would be viewed as legitimate by reasonable citizens who on religious, philosophical, or moral grounds do not themselves accept a liberal comprehensive doctrine--such as that of Kant, or Mill, or Rawls's own "Justice as Fairness," presented in A Theory of Justice (1971).

The Law of Peoples extends the idea of a social contract to the Society of Peoples and lays out the general principles that can and should be accepted by both liberal and non-liberal societies as the standard for regulating their behavior toward one another. In particular, it draws a crucial distinction between basic human rights and the rights of each citizen of a liberal constitutional democracy. It explores the terms under which such a society may appropriately wage war against an "outlaw society," and discusses the moral grounds for rendering assistance to non-liberal societies burdened by unfavorable political and economic conditions.

Customer Reviews (8)

Another Interesting Rawls Work
This concise book consists of 2 essays, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited and The Law of Peoples.While The Idea... essay is second in the book, I would read it first because it is a good review of a crucial concept in Rawls' thought and very useful for grasping the argument in The Law of Peoples.The Idea... explicates Rawls emphasis on mutual justification and the somewhat separate nature of political conduct in formulating the basis of polities.

Some of Rawls' last work, The Law of Peoples is an attempt to extend Rawls contractarian approach to international relations.Rawls uses the same approach here used in prior work proposing a reasonable basis for political organization of individual polities.In international relations, Rawls proposes a contract between Peoples (or their representatives) who meet on equal terms behind an analogue of his famous "veil of ignorance" to guarantee a free and equal status.This leads to rational (promotion of self interest) and reasonable (mutually and publicly justifiable) formulation of standards for international conduct.These include many standard tenets of international law such as war only for self-defense.Rawls includes both liberal societies (essentially all forms of functioning modern democracies) and what he terms decent peoples.The latter will not meet all the criteria for a liberal state but will respect human rights and have some measures for broad political participation.Something like the type of state envisioned by 18th century theorists like Montesquieu or a state with an state religion and tolerance of other faiths would be decent societies.Rawls basic point is that the values upheld by liberal or decent societies extend logically via the mechanisms he proposes to a reasonable ideal formulation of international relations.Rawls does propose this as an assembly of Peoples, rather than states.This distinction is not perfectly clear but may be that state for Rawls implied too much about the powers of the entity and may not satisfy the veil of ignorance criteria.

After formulating and justifying his ideal theory, Rawls discuses some non-ideal issues, such as conduct of war and the obligations favored states have towards less fortunate states.

Like much of Rawls work, this work is rigorously formulated and written very carefully.Rawls is never a sparking stylist but this work is perhaps more easily read than some of this work.Rawls feels this work is realistically utopian, the purpose of which is to define some of the bounds of what might be possible in international relations by systematic exercise of reason and good faith.In this case, this is actually realistic.Rawls is on firm ground in the sense that some of the foundations for developing his system, like the existence of democractic pluralistic societies and absence of war between democracies, are real phenomena.

Hope for our future.
My 'phenom' daughter recommended this book to me. She read it as a poli-sci/pre-med undergrad at UC Berkeley, and having noticed my growing cynicism regarding the direction our country has been headed, this was her 'philosophical lifesaver'. What Prof. Rawls offers is nothing less than a roadmap of hope, not only for our country but for the world.And that's a mouthful of praise, coming from a cynical Vietnam-vet.

Disparate peoples tcoming ogether
This is a must-read book. This treatise analyses how peoples of diverse cultures and religions can find a path towards living cooperatively together in peace. If the peoples of the world want to find a "government" that can lead them all and be respected, this book will be of enormaous assistance in understanding the way it may be done.
The discussion views a variety of disparate forms of societies and describes their pros and cons to underscore his arguments, and as a result Laws could easily be quoted out of context. This however is the strength of his discourse, as he takes the reader along in his line of thought, while at the same time answering his anticipated critics.

Major flaw of this book are misconceptions...
Law of peoples has a major flaw: misconceptions, and this are:

1 - Bismarck isn't a statesman????? But Lincoln and Washington are!?!??!?!?! I believe j. rawls hadn't a great european knowledge at time he wrote about this part, even if he has, he's idea of "Just", "fair" seems ambiguos, since where is the difference between Lincoln, Washington and Bismarck? All three fought war to unify (or maintain the unity) of they people.

2 - About his exceptions, it is a shock to read that a country can suspend the status of citizien (civil) and transform all people of the enemy as military target, justifiyng that in "the need of win the war, and stop the evil". God, in other words: if i mean that country X is evil, and to prevent his victory i can use all means necessary so i can use nuclear weapons against it?

3 - His position in judging things in "evil/good" are.... how to say: a Error, if not a bu.......But this is personal opinion about the book.

4 - This is the greatest flaw: all idea about law of peoples move over the idea of american way of life, in other words, it isn't a law of peoples, but a AMERICAN law of peoples, even if he speak from toleration.

At last, i believe i found the doctrinal base of George W. Bush foreign policy: america is a paladin wielding the sword of justice to bring democracy (american democracy) to the world, and this is the law of people. This is the ideological flaw of this work.

Not to say that there aren't good point of view (that's why 3 stars) i would only sugest this book to people that, at minimum, readed: Epoch of International Law (GREWE) and Diplomacy (KISSINGER). If u don't have international history, law, relations knowledge, read this two books before entering in m. rawls ideas, or u may be converted in this ideologically flawed book.

An unfortunate book
First, some disclosure regarding my opinion of Rawls (may he rest in peace).I am no fan of Rawls' work, be it this work or his others.As such, my own views will no doubt influence my opinion, so keep that in mind as you read on.

This book is divided into two parts, the first dedicated to the "Law of Peoples," the second to public reason.In the interests of space, I will only concentrate on the first portion.

The Law of Peoples is Rawls' attempt to bring his notions of justice as fairness and the like into the international scene.Using a modified "original position," Rawls discusses the way the international scene would run, not only with liberal societies, but also "decent" and "outlaw" states (among others).Fine and good.

The problem lies (as it does with "Theory of Justice" and "Political Liberalism") in the acceptance of what the "original position" would result in.The original position requires that "comprehensive doctrines" be left to the side (read "Theory" for more on that).In other words, your (or a people's) worldview (or deep notion of the good) must be cast aside.This is problematic enough, but it gets worse.Rawls wants a "political, not metaphysical" notion of justice to prevail.By happy chance, that "political" notion just happends to be liberal, of a moderate left variety.Rawls would deny that he is slipping in his "comprehensive doctrine" into the works, but it does make things difficult.

So, say a people decides that they prefer their own comprehensive doctrine (a religion, an ideology of one type or another, etc.) to the "political" version of Rawls.Rawls argues that "reasonable" peoples will accept it, at least on some level, thanks to an "overlapping consensus" (very basically, that the political notion will overlap enough with the comprehensive doctrine, making it acceptable at some level).Both "reasonable" and "overlapping consensus" are argued at length in "Political Liberalism."The consensus idea has some merit.But who are "reasonable"?Why, they are the peoples who follow the original position's precepts, of course.How....convenient.

While Rawls would not agree, this system (like his national systems in "Theory" and "PL") is in practice the imposition of comprehensive liberalism by other means.When reading Rawls, it isn't a bad idea to have some critiques on his work handy (for instance: Michael Sandel, Robert P. George, perhaps Gutmann & Thompson, among others).Rawls is a giant in the field, whether one agrees with him or not.If one wants to understand contemporary political theory, he should be read - but read "Theory" or "PL".If you are interested in political theory as it involves international relations, read "PL", then read this, not because it's great, but it's popular. ... Read more

Book Description
John Rawls is the most significant and influential moral philosopher of the twentieth century. His work has profoundly affected contemporary discussions of social, political and economic justice in philosophy, law, political science, economics and other social disciplines. In this collection of new essays, many of the world's leading political and moral theorists discuss the full range of Rawls's contribution to the concepts of political and economic justice, democracy, liberalism, constitutionalism and international justice.Download Description
Each volume of this series of companions to major philosophers contains specially commissioned essays by an international team of scholars and will serve as a reference work for students and nonspecialists. John Rawls is the most significant and influential philosopher and moral philosopher of the twentieth century. His work has profoundly shaped contemporary discussions of social, political and economic justice in philosophy, law, political science, economics and other social disciplines. In this exciting collection of new essays, many of the world's leading political and moral theorists discuss the full range of Rawls's contribution to the concepts of political and economic justice, democracy, liberalism, constitutionalism, and international justice. There are also assessments of Rawls's controversial relationships with feminism, utilitarianism and communitarianism. New readers will find this the most accessible guide to Rawls currently available. Advanced students and specialists will find a conspectus of recent developments in the interpretation of Rawls. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Understanding Rawls
Rawls theory of justice is a complex work with so many interrelated concepts that not only beginners but even the more experienced need help of other thinkers to better appreciate his work. This collection of essays fulfills this need. The contributors have explained in detail the concepts like 'Original Position', reflective equilibrium, and the difference principle which are the main pillars of Rawls work and also explored the relationship of his work to other areas of political philosophy and social justice.

Certain underlying assumptions and thoughts not overtly found in Rawls literature have also been brought to focus. Essayists have also extended Rawls views to concerns like feminism not expressly treated by him.

The essays are mainly sympathetic to Rawls point of view and also explain how some other lines of thought like communitarianism can be accommodated within Rawlsian framework.

I think that value of the book could have been enhanced by including views of Rawls' main critics like Sandel and Nozik in more detail. That would have given the reader an opportunity to consider the competing political theories better.

If you have read Rawls earlier and want more clarity about his views, this book will be a great help.

Excellent
The series of "Cambridge Companions" is recognized for doing a impressive job of collecting articles on leading thinkers and this tome on Rawls justifies that reputation. This a remarkable series of essays written by a wide range of leading Rawls commentators.

When assembling a collection on any great philosopher, due to their sheer number, some perspectives and some influential interpretations have to be left out. The present case is no exception: one certainly gets the impression that many points of view were left out of this collection. The authors are, for the most part, quite sympathetic to Rawls and interested in defending him from many of his critics. This is perhaps not surprising, considering that the great majority of them were either his students or colleagues (but then again, many of his most famous critics were as well) The article on Rawls and Communitarianism, for instance, is more of a rebuttal of communitarian interpretations and criticisms of Rawls than it is a communitarian commentary on Rawls. But this, I think, can be forgiven as it is a rebuttal that still leaves you with an impression of what such a communitarian approach generally is. So though you won't find contributions from Nozick, Sandel, Walzer, Taylor, Harsanyi, Cavell or Rorty in here, all in all, this remains an excellent volume, for both the unfamiliar with Rawls and the advanced student.

Excellent resource
This book is an excellent resource both for the student first coming to Rawls and the experience philosopher who wants to know more about his theory.All of the essays are of the highest quality.It should take the place of Norman Daniels' excellent, but out-dated, "Reading Rawls" as the standard companion set of essays for any class dealing with Rawls, and will provide fruitful ground for scholars for years to come. ... Read more

Book Description
John Rawls's work on justice has drawn more commentary and aroused wider attention than any other work in moral or political philosophy in the twentieth century. Rawls is the author of two major treatises, A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993); it is said that A Theory of Justice revived political philosophy in the English-speaking world. But before and after writing his great treatises Rawls produced a steady stream of essays. Some of these essays articulate views of justice and liberalism distinct from those found in the two books. They are important in and of themselves because of the deep issues about the nature of justice, moral reasoning, and liberalism they raise as well as for the light they shed on the evolution of Rawls's views. Some of the articles tackle issues not addressed in either book. They help identify some of the paths open to liberal theorists of justice and some of the knotty problems which liberal theorists must seek to resolve. A complete collection of John Rawls's essays is long overdue. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

great book
The best of Rawls in a fine edition.Great book to read.

Engaging look at Rawls' lifework
Rawls' doctoral dissertation, completed at Harvard in 1951, sketched a procedure for adjudicating certain political and moral conflicts. Twenty years later he parlayed this procedure into his famous elaboration ofsocial contract theory, his conception of "justice as fairness."This idea marks the heart of Rawls' _A Theory of Justice_, the mostimportant and influential work of political philosophy of the twentiethcentury. His central thesis, that a conception of justice as fairness wouldbe accepted by all members of liberal constitutional democracies, motivatedRawls' justly-celebrated philosophical defense of democratic liberalism. In_Political Liberalism_ (1993), Rawls deepened his philosophical analysis byarticulating an even broader principle, that of "public reason,"which he believes is the shared basis for justifying (among other things)liberty of conscience, freedom of thought, and toleration of differencewithin liberal societies. Most recently, in _The Law of Peoples_ (1999),Rawls has stretched the social contract yet further by defending an evenmore general philosophical principle, that of the "just law ofpeoples." Just as the liberal principles of justice of fairness andpublic reason allowed him to develop complex theories about politicalrelations within liberal democracies, Rawls believes that, because it wouldbe acceptable to both constitutional liberals and members of certainilliberal societies, this new principle forms the basis of a socialcontract more inclusive than those of his earlier treatises. Rawls' visionof a realizable near-utopia emerges through his beautiful theoreticalelaborations of a social contract theory that takes his principles--as wellas the existence of a world burdened with outlaw states, crushing poverty,and problematical absolutism--utterly seriously.

Rawls' _CollectedPapers_ brings together nearly all of his major and minor shorterpublications on these and related issues. Many essays explore in greaterdepth issues raised by critics of _A Theory of Justice_ and _PoliticalLiberalism_, and all of them together paint a fascinating portrait ofRawls' philosophical development between 1951 and the present. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

fair over-view, but not the best avaliable
This book is not bad if you want a quick over-view of Rawls.It's very readable and not terribly unreliable.But, it is also fairly superficial (it's hard to see how it could not be, given how short it is) and does not go in to significant depth as to any aspect of Rawls.The transition from A Theory of Justice to Political Liberalism is, in particular, given too little space.If all you want is a quick over-view of Rawls you can do worse, but if you want either a serious introduction or commentary you should look elsewhere.Jon Mandle's _What's Left of Liberalism_ or the _Cambridge Companion to Rawls_ are better choices.

Cliff Notes
This short book outlines the argument of "A Theory of Justice," John Rawls' landmark book of political theory; it also considers the critical commentary that has swirled around Rawls' book since its publication in the 1970s.Strangely, more space is given to "communitarian" critics such as Michael Sandel than to libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who is usually treated as Rawls' intellectual nemesis.The authors write clearly and their discussion is fine as far as it goes; however, it doesn't go very far.The book is too short and sketchy to be of much value to anyone except absolute beginners in philosophy.

Highly recommended
Kukathas and Petit are extremly succesful in this book. Their analysisabout Rawls' theory of justice is essential for those who want tounderstand the theory. The best moment of the book is the final chapter,inwhich the reader is able to compare Rawls'positions through the years.Amust for Law and Philosophy students. ... Read more

Book Description

Term paper due tomorrow? Need to cram for a test? Or just looking for the best information about a favorite literary work?

Turn to "Nonfiction Classics for Students" to get your research done in record time. Brought to you by Thomson Gale--the world's leading source of literary criticism and analysis--this e-doc contains: a summary of the work; analysis of key figures; author biography; an overview of the work's themes, style, and historical context; a compendium of in-depth critical material; study questions; compare-and-contrast commentary; suggestions for further reading; and much more.

Why choose "Nonfiction Classics for Students"? Because no other source offers so much in such a compact package. Trust the experts: Thomson Gale--and "Nonfiction Classics for Students."Download Description

Term paper due tomorrow? Need to bone up for a test? Or just looking for the best information about a favorite literary work?

Turn to "Nonfiction Classics for Students" to get your research done in record time. Brought to you by the Gale Group--the world's leading source of literary criticism and analysis--this e-doc contains: a summary of the work; analysis of key figures; author biography; an overview of the work's themes, style, and historical context; a compendium of in-depth critical material; study questions; compare-and-contrast commentary; suggestions for further reading; and much more.

Why choose "Nonfiction Classics for Students"? Because no other source offers so much in such a compact package. Trust the experts: The Gale Group--and "Nonfiction Classics for Students." ... Read more

Book Description
John Rawls (1921-2002) is one of the most influential thinkers of the twentieth century. Contemporary political philosophy has been reshaped by his seminal ideas and most current work in the discipline is a response to them. Catherine Audard introduces his central ideas and examines their contribution to contemporary political thought. Audard begins with an exploration of Rawls' conception of political and social justice and its justification as presented in his groundbreaking A Theory of Justice. She provides a sustained examination of Rawls' moral philosophy, the complex relation between Rawls' views and utilitarianism, and his most famous concept, the Original Position Device. She concludes with an analysis of Rawls' more practical concerns for stability and political consensus, citizenship and international justice, showing the continuity between these concerns and his earlier work.John Rawls places the philosopher's ideas within an historical context and provides an interpretative and critical framework that will help shape ongoing debates surrounding Rawls' work. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

good intro to Rawls
For anyone looking for an accessible and solid introduction to
Rawls's work, this a good place to start. Audard explains clearly
some of Rawls's keys ideas, and some of her criticisms of those
ideas and possible responses to them are useful.
However, there are parts when Audard's setting up of criticisms
and leaving them dangling without seeing how Rawls's ideas could
counter them do seem contrived. Often the method here is to claim
that Ralws overlooked a point and that he did not formulate a response
clearly enough. Perhaps there may be some truth in these claims, but
a close reading of Rawls's texts may show that in many cases he did respond.
The point here is that Audard is not sympathetic enough to Rawls ideas
to be able to see the depth and subtlety in many of his notions and his
defence of them. Perhaps Samuel Freeman's new book on Rawls may fill that
gap. ... Read more

Book Description
Employs the political philosophy of John Rawls to address controversies involving politics and religion. ... Read more

Book Description
The essays in this volume offer an approach to the history of moral and political philosophy that takes its inspiration from John Rawls. The distinctive feature of this approach is to address substantive normative questions in moral and political philosophy through an analysis of the texts and theories of major figures in the history of the subject: Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Rousseau, Kant, and Marx.By reconstructing the core of these theories in a way that is informed by contemporary theoretical concerns, the contributors show how the history of the subject is a resource for understanding present and perennial problems in moral and political philosophy. ... Read more