A Theory of Justice: Original Edition by John Rawls
|
List Price: Our Price: $11.34 You Save: $15.66 (58%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of A Theory of Justice: Original Edition
Book Review: very fine about justice in no justice world ....
Summary: 5 Stars
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.Book Review: Accessible and important development in liberal thought
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Book Review: The Impossible Attempt of Reconciling the Ideal with the Realistic
Summary: 1 Stars
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.Book Review: Comic reviews
Summary: 5 Stars
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!)Book Review: Essential
Summary: 5 Stars
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.