A Theory of Justice

Rating:
Summary: On a misreading of Rawls
Review: A key method in John Rawls' A Theory of Justice is the thought-experiment he calls "the veil of ignorance": in the idealized liberal state, the best constitution would be chosen by citizens who have temporarily forgotten their station in life.

An all-to-common misreading of the veil of ignorance presumes that the citizens would still be methodological individualists, and goes on to say that Rawls would have to assume, with no good reason, that the citizens in the thought-experiment would hedge their bets, and ensure that justice would be done them were they to return from the veil, and find themselves on the bottom.

This is a complete mistake: for it presumes that people in the veil would act according to the rules of methodological individualism. This also begs the question for Rawls is an answer to Nozickian libertarianism which is fully based on methodological individualism, and a strong presumption that people will not be altruistic.

Rawls' programme, completely misread by this, was to construct a minimal foundation for liberalism and the theory of the veil does NOT presume that citizens would act from selfish OR altruistic bases.

And even if we were to grant that the citizens act from selfish bases, note that we could not infer anything about the result of the overall choice for libertarianism cannot explain why the selfish individualist votes. That is, because he knows that his vote is insignificant in a large population, it is not "rational" for him to vote for individualist arrangements and it is instead "rational" for him to sit out the entire session of the "veil."

Methodological individualism and Nozickian libertarianism cannot predict what the citizens in the veil will do.

In the invasion of Okinawa, depending on one's unit, a United States Marine had very little chance of surviving the battle. Combat on behalf of the liberal state is somewhat akin to the veil of ignorance because it also suspends libertarian individualism and replaces it with a variety of chaotic and incoherent motivations. A "pure" libertarian, on Okinawa, would shoot himself in the foot in order to be evacuated.

Actual men of the United States Marine Corps generally stayed the course until death or victory from a variety of motivations including altruism. Now, it might be objected that they maintained unit cohesion and small group loyalties according to the libertarian calculus, "knowing" that the best way to survive a battle is to stick with the group and move forward.

I find this reductionism hard to credit. It reduces an emotion (loyalty to one's comrades) with a Yuppie calculation made in the stress of battle.

For the same reason, I read Rawls as mostly silent on the operant motivations of citizens in the veil of ignorance and it is possible that the predominant motivation is a prerational form of group cohesion, pure altruism, or even a common acceptance of natural rights.

The last might form a theoretical model for the period between the United States Declaration of Independence, and our real Constitution. The Declaration stated natural rights as instinctually received in the religious traditions of the Founders, still strong ethically although Deist in theology. The interim of the Articles of Confederation can be viewed as the period of the "veil" in which the Founders stumbled about, trying to get rid of their libertarian narrow interests and to think in terms of the good of the whole. The Constituion as written, almost unconsciously and with the signal error of slavery, stated in primitive forms the equality of man.

Had this been driven by naked self-interest then stronger clauses would have been incorporated INCLUDING a guarantee of the right to hold slaves...as did the Confederate constitution.

Rawls' theory does not presume methodological individualism: it is instead a minimalist story (in the spirit of the "minimalist art" of Rawls' 1972, used to decorate government offices without needlessly offending) of the justice of a state which could not use religion or ethnicity as an apportioning tool. Such a state would also be unjust were it to reward those Yuppies who most nearly conform to the libertarian prescription, and grab for everything not tied down: such a state has a duty of care, not only to the helpless, but also to those foolish enough to care for others, or brave Japanese fire as Marines. It is interesting to the theorist and to the reader of Rawls that our state significantly fails mothers and veteran common soldiers, for these people haven't conformed to the Nozickian ideal.

Finally, Martha Nussbaum's modern critique of Rawls shows that the only way to preserve Rawls, in which autonomous citizens are apparently not only allowed to choose the constitution but (as far as I can tell) to choose the method by which they choose the constitution, is to base the choice on autonomous acceptance of some form of natural law. Otherwise, a proto-feminist account of a right/duty of care has to be devised to replace an old-fashioned "Roman" and male sense of ethical duty.

Rating:
Summary: Not for the Beach
Review: A modern social contract theorist, John Rawls argues that the principles of justice should be selected from behind a "veil of ignorance" that prevents the parties from knowing their class positions, natural abilities, religious identities, and so forth. With the parties shielded from bias and arbitrary influences, Rawls believes that they will chose to protect core civil liberties and to tolerate only those social inequalities that leaves less-advantaged groups better off than they would be otherwise. Once it lodges in the mind, the argument of A Theory of Justice illuminates a remarkable range of political, legal, philosophical, and economic issues. Every educated person should read the book -- but he should be warned that it is very long and that Rawls' writing is constipated and repetitive. A Theory of Justice is a classic that cries out for an intelligent abridgement.

Rating:
Summary: Masterful
Review: A must read for anyone interested in contemporary political philosophy, A Theory of Justice presents a comprehensive liberal doctrine, as opposed to the political liberal doctrine that Rawls advances in Political Liberalism.

Rating:
Summary: An Interesting Approach
Review: A Theory of Justice addresses most every issue concerning the many aspects of Justice. Although many contentions I disagree, I must credit John Rawls for endeavoring to take upon such a LARGE task.

Rating:
Summary: Shoddier than I had expected.
Review: After hearing near unanimous praise from this book, even from people who disagreed with it, I decided I needed to check it out.

However, I found the book to be blatantly shoddy, contradictory, and confused.

The first problem is Rawls' economics.

He seems to assume Pareto Optimality (No one can be made better without making someone worse off), but also holds views contradictory to this equillibrium assumption.

In his discussion of time preference (the gigantic problems of which I will get to soon), he seems to understand the role time preference has in setting the ratio of consumption expenditure to consumption expenditure, and that those in the "original position" will have to choose the correct ratio of present consumption to future production.

However, the (correct) idea that the accumulation of capital stocks through restriction of consumption, or their depletion through consumption, militates against the Walrasian/Paretian/Schumpeterian equillibrium view.

His discusiion of the nature of time preference is highly problematic as well (although it includes one of the best insights of the book).

Rawls claims that having a positive rate of pure time preference is irrational. He defines a pure rate of time preference as any inexplicable phenomenon that would cause people to prefer something to another just because it was at an earlier time. He makes an exception for a preference for present goods based on uncertainty of the future.

However, having a positive pure rate of time preference is possible. Eugen von Bohm Bawerk was certainly the greatest exponent of the "pure rate of time preference" concept and offered reasons for the positive rate that would not be irrational or included in Rawls' definition.

Bohm Bawerk said that people may have a positive rate of time preference because they expect to have more in the future in the present,and hence, a lower value of the marginal unit in the future. This is clearly not irrational, or ,as Rawls would put it, does not show that one is not being impartial towards all periods of his life.

There is another huge problem with Rawls' discusiion of time preference, one that demonstrates how bad of a philosopher he is.

Rawls defines those in the original position as perfectly rationaland with no pure rate of time preference. If you accept Rawls' assumptions that I mentioned above, this is perfectly in line. However, he says that the choosers in the original position should then disregartd time preference in their decision to set up society. The fatal flaw, which completely destroys his thesis, is that the people in the original position would be choosing how to organize a society of REAL Humans, i.e., irrational beings with time preference, If they were deciding how to organize a society of other perfect humans, then this would be valid, but Rawls' book is obviously a plea of how to organize our society.

Of course, this flaw that permeates Rawls' work should make obvious why Rawls makes the following statement: "We want to define the original position so that we get the desired solution." (This revealing quote is on page 161 of the 1971 version).

There is a myriad of other problems, and a few good insights, but this is all I have time to deal with here.

Edit: The above reviewer's critique of my review completely misses.

First off, there are still may "right wing scholars" who are unimpressed with this book. Anthony Flew and Peter Bauer are perhaps the most notable, also look at Anthony De Jasay, Michael Levin and Hans Hermann Hoppe. Left wing scholar G.A. Cohen also has expressed his disapproval of Rawls.

It is also a non-argument to point out that right wing scholars (and many did) like Rawls. Even if the Argument from authority was a legitimate technique, we both know that the reason this book is so celebrated has nothing to do with its political conclusions. Timothy Roth is a right wing Rawlsian, and if you read my review of "The Ethics and the Economics of Minimalist Government" you will see I don't hesitate to criticize his bad moral philosophy (Great economist, though).

I fail to see how I focus my criticism on only one section. What of my critique of his contradictory economic assumptions?

The problem with assuming that choosers in the original position have no time preference rate is different from his other assumptions about them. Much of the veil of ignorance relates to getting the people in the original position to choose what is best for the average man. Many people would find that an uncontroversial goal.

This would actually help people in the real world. However, setting up a system for people with preferences that do not exist in the real world is completely different.

This destroys his political argument because he attributes inequality to differences in talents. But what about tastes? Ceteris Paribus, someone with a low rate of time preference will be richer than someone with a high one.

Rating:
Summary: The most important political philosophy work ever?
Review: Anyone who doesn't give Rawls' Theory of Justice five stars is just being intellectually dishonest. Even if you radically diasagee with his conclusions there is no doubt that the work is a masterpiece of moral theroy and deserves to be praised as an important milestone in Western thought. Even his toughest critic, Robert Nozick, calls the book "beautiful." I happen to agree with most of what Rawls' says in the book but personally believe that similar conclusions can be drawn without referring to "the Original Position," which is important since most of the criticisms thrown at Rawls deal with this unique aspect of his theory. Nevertheless the way Rawls approaches the problem of justice is one which is clear and persuausive for even the philosophical novice...though his writing is very complex, at times almost obtuse. He wasn't interested in "entertaining" is reader. He just wanted to present his case as deeply and conviningly as possible. A true classic and masterpiece!

Rating:
Summary: Utopia deja-vu, all over again.
Review: Apparently the difference between a criminal act (theft) and moral redistribution of income is 1) who you steal from (stealing from the wealthy, of course, is moral -- according to Rawls and Bolsheviks), and 2) who receives the loot (the non-wealthy makes it moral), and 3) who commits the act (the state/society, of course also makes theft moral; example - taxation), and 4) your intentions (redistribution of income). To look at this another way, if your neighbor breaks into your house and steals your money, that's a crime (unless your neighbor is poor -- which would then be moral and Justice, according to Rawls' formula). If the community comes into your house and steals from you, it's legal and moral Justice, again, according to Rawls. Because, according to Rawls, if, before you were born, you were to vote with everyone on how physical world society should be structured, you'd vote to have the state guarantee that everyone was equal, or they would be compensated somehow for being born (unjustly) less-equal. How? By compensating those with less by stealing from those with more. So those with more would be like oh, say ... a milk-cow who gets milked to serve those with less. So those with more would become a resource, or state-owned slaves to those with less ... because "society" (the Robin Hoods and Rawls of the world) deemed this as moral Justice. Rawls does not take into account those who are willing to take on risk, entrepreneurs, students of life who work to earn an "A" vs. students who earn an "F". He points out that many people are born into difficult situations through no fault of their own. True. But that does not implicate those within society who are born into better situations as the cause, nor are those who are born into better situations responsible for making up the difference. Forcing the "wealthier" ones to be accountable for the unfairness within life and pay the bill isn't Justice or moral. It would simply be an unjust law. Some people see Rawls' theory as a blueprint for a future generation utopia (like the Bolsheviks envisioned Marxism). I see it as an insane blueprint for slavery, and a powerful dis-incentive for earning personal reward and merit. In a sense, this book is an argument against the individual. It sees the world through a blurred lense where the author only recognizes masses of people -- he doesn't recognize any individuals (unless they were born as victims). Curious. How do you experience life ... as a group-mind (an oxymoron if there ever was one), a collective? Or as a unique, isolated, independent, individual? There should be societal incentives to help each other. Okay. But when it is forced (theft of property always implies force), it is no longer an issue of morality or justice -- it's simply a law. Without personal choice being involved there is no morality as an issue, by definition. Transforming advantaged individuals into mules forced to carry the burdens of the world is a definition of justice for whom?




Rating:
Summary: Interesting theory, vague in practice?
Review: First, I want a theory of justice to give clear and concrete answers to the question "What is just?" in as many situations as possible. Second, these answers must be good, defined here as intuitive, feasible and stable. Measured against this I find Rawls theory restricted, vague, sometimes counter-intuitive, demanding too much too be feasible and unstable since people may well break the contract as soon as they know their own position in society.

Rating:
Summary: a great theory only...not realistic enough.
Review: I do think John Rawls' theory of the veil of ignorance is a good one, it is a way of setting justice in a society. From there he creates two principles which he assume are the basis of justice. I only have doubts on how he wants this veil of ignorance to be realistic. This is why my rate is ****.

Rating:
Summary: The Ripple Effect
Review: I had to read this book for coursework at Oxford. and found it to be maddening, because we could never understand anothers plight by employing the veil of ignorance. On the other hand, if after reading and analyzing the theory, you are given to think about your own disposition, then it is well worth it. In my essay i wrote against Rawls theory, not given to believing that we are totally selfless in our quest for justice.