Rating: 
Summary: Another Must-Read for Those Interested in Pol. Philosphy
Review: I have a definite interest in political philosophy. I read John Rawls "A Theory of Justice" (ATOJ) shortly after reading Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, & Utopia" (AS&U). (My review of AS&U is also available here.) I read AS&U almost immediately after realizing its existence while I was looking for reading material about libertarian ideas. I read ATOJ because, while reading AS&U, I read a statement indicating that these two texts have been the primary catalysts of modern sociopolitical debate. Having now read both works, I can easily believe that. Also, I am, generally, in agreement with Nozick that a "night watchman" state is all that can be morally justified. I know this is a somewhat radical position in the context of today's political thinkers; therefore, I wanted to read something that presents different ideas. I chose ATOJ.I am 37 years old. I am a software designer and programmer. I work in a very competitive commercial environment (for a company - as opposed to the government or academic environments). I have a wife and two active children with whom I gladly spend a great deal of time. I say these things to indicate that I am not in any field where my pursuit of my interest in the history of philosophy and, specifically, political philosophy is of any direct or immediate benefit and to indicate that I have relatively little time to study such things. The time I have available to read or analyze ANY work about political philosophy is very limited. However, having become very disillusioned by the two major political parties in the United States, my interest in political philosophy has been very strong over the past several years. I have learned that, if I wish to benefit from my reading to the degree that I desire, I must carefully choose what I read - I must study as efficiently as I can. I believe that I have chosen well in reading AS&U and ATOJ to gain a detailed introduction to modern (and, even, antique) political ideas. Since reading these two works, I have continued my study in many different directions, but these works are an excellent starting point. If you are similar to me in interest and responsibilities, I would highly recommend this combination of reading material as an efficient starting point. John Rawls, in ATOJ, presents some very important and intriguing ideas. These ideas are presented well and in an organzization that is adequate to the author's purpose, with good summarization or key points. (My only criticism of AS&U in my review of it regarded the nature its organization, lack of summaries, and Nozick's tendency to digress into tangential discussions that, although interesting and important, seemed to reduce my ability to efficiently benefit from Nozick's main points.) Rawls' presentation of the concept of the "original position" in support of his idea of "Justice as Fairness" is excellent and significant. However, I do not agree with the extrapolation of the ideas presented early in ATOJ into the design of the institutions (state) that Rawls proposes later, in Part Two, of the work. Early in ATOJ, one might fall into the belief that John Rawls is a strong proponent of individual rights. Rawls writes "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. Therefore in a just society the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or the calculus of social interests." He also writes "The denial of the equal liberties can be defended only when it is essential to change the conditions of civilization so that in due course these liberties can be enjoyed." On the surface, these statements from Rawls will likely bring agreement (even excitement) from promoters and defenders of individual liberty and responsibility. However, upon examining the departments of the state that Rawls proposes later in the work, one can not maintain that agreement (or excitement). I find this (bait and switch?) characteristic to be typical of most modern liberal ideas. If you have such a good idea, why is obfuscation required to promote it? After this, my first, reading of ATOJ, I can still not understand how Rawls extrapolated the ideas presented early in ATOJ into the state design that includes as one of its major departments one with the sole purpose of redistributing wealth. It is one thing to accept that it is morally ideal for one to seek to help (or, even, serve) others. It is quite another to believe that it is morally justified for a state to confiscate even a portion of the fruits of the labor of an individual without their consent and, potentially, for purposes that individual would find immoral. I do not mean to imply that helping or serving others is not moral. It is just that I see that there is no justification for the state forcing individuals to participate in such things. Consider what such a state design implies. A government/state consists only of human agents. "The denial of the equal liberties" mentioned in a previous paragraph and the forced redistribution of wealth included in Rawls' state design imply that human agents of the state should be the ones that make decisions that define the level of "equal liberties" and the degree of the redistribution of wealth. No matter how you color or try to justify this, it is elitism born of collectivism - socialism, pure and simple. I find Rawls' concept of the desired state/government to be the antithesis of the concept of individual liberty and responsibility upon which the government of the United States of America was founded. Sadly, I believe that the governments of our nation and its constituent states are currently much closer to the socialist/elitist/welfare state that has come about (partly) as a result of the influence of Rawls than they are to the "night watchman" state of Nozick. I am not completely convinced (yet, anyway) that Nozick's "night watchman" state is the best one. However, I would rather our country (at least) reverse course to move further away from socialist/elitist/welfare state and closer to the "night watchman" state. I found that I garnered the most benefit from the sections of ATOJ that discuss civil disobedience and related topics. These sections helped me consider important ideas that I had not before considered in so complete a fashion. I believe that I now understand fully when civil disobedience is philosophically justiable and when it is not. Thank you, Mr. Rawls, for this.
Rating: 
Summary: Pasty-faced corporate liberalism from the master
Review: I read this book when I was a senior at Fordham, and was struck by the banality of the argument. Rawls may be a Harvard professor, but sounds more like a speech writer for Adlai Stevenson who attempted to write a textbook. My advice to the young, skip this reactionary BS and do some thinking on your own!
Rating:
Summary: Rock and Rawls
Review: I think everything I would say about this book has been said already by others-- I found it very intriguing. I'm a hard-line utilitarian, and Rawls obviously makes an interesting critique of utilitarian social organization, but I wasn't compelled to reject my views. This is a great book, but I personally prefer his Political Liberalism to this one. A little note on Marx-- Rawls is definitely not a Marxist. Those who criticize him as such clearly don't know anything about Marx's work. Marx never actually says very much about what his communist state is going to look like, other than his belief that markets and politics will be abolished. Rawls doesn't believe in abolishing markets, and his discussion of redistribution of wealth would never be possible in a Marxist state.
Rating:
Summary: great book on justice
Review: i think this book is a real corner-stone for the history of political philosophy. after reading the book you will have a new conception for justice and public order. especially his understanding of the original position is a very original for the concept of justice in the society.
Rating: 
Summary: Fine argumentation, but unrealistic.
Review: IF THE ONLY STANDARD TO VALUE AN ESSAY IS ITS LOGIC AND COMPLETENESS, THIS BOOK IS POWFUL.BUT A THOERY MUST BE PRACTICAL, ESPECIALLY A THEORY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE. WE READ ETHICS TO FIND WHAT WE SHOULD DO, WHY WE SHOULD DO THAT, AND HOW WE CAN DO THAT. IN THIS REGARD I THINK THIS BOOK IS DISAPPOINTING.
Rating:
Summary: Great book, but does he really accept these principles?
Review: Imagine someone in upper management at a large corporation who talks frequently and even writes books about the importance of labor unions. What would you think if later on you learned he didn't want them in his company? The situation of John Rawls is similar. His book is about the justice of social institutions. Almost at the very beginning of his book he says, "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions." But Rawls himself is part of an institution, academia, so it behooves us to see what he has done to make academia more just. As far as I can see, he has done nothing along these lines. Academia is essentially a caste system. Professors and would-be professors are judged primarily, not on their ideas, but on where they went to grad school. The people who get the best jobs and who are most likely to be published are people like John Rawls, people who are from the elite schools. Yet, where people go to grad school would seem to be quite irrelevant, from a moral point of view. The people most likely to go to the elite schools are the rich and those who do well on standardized tests. In other contexts, people like Rawls who are to the left of center do not think that either of these groups deserves anything special. Why should they make an exception when it comes to grad school? There are many valid reasons why people do not end up in the elite schools. Maybe they are brilliant but they do not do well on standardized tests. Maybe they want to study with a particular person or to be in a particular program. Maybe they were a late bloomer, or maybe they got bad advice on where to go. Maybe they had to take care for a sick parent in the evening, and there were no elite schools nearby. Maybe all the professors at the elite schools in their area of study had reputations as being abusive. There are many reasons why a brilliant person might not have gone to an elite school. Yet, none of these matters to academia. The only thing that matters is going to an elite school. John Rawls has done nothing to change this situation. In fact, the general tendency of people like Rawls is to deny that academia is a caste system. Which of us is right? This matters for Rawls' system of justice because the people who are supposed to determine the principles of justice are supposed to determine those principles behind what Rawls calls the veil of ignorance. Such people are not supposed to know particular facts about themselves, such as their race or gender, but they are supposed to know the general facts about society. But who determines what those facts are? What if there is a disagreement about them? Oddly enough, in other contexts people like Rawls tend to listen to those at the bottom. It is only in academia where the only opinions that matter are the opinions of those at the top. And since the people at the top all agree that academia is wonderful -- and why would we expect them to say anything different? -- apparently everyone else has to agree with their assessment of the situation. I have given this book one star. On the day that I hear that Rawls is doing something to make academia more fair and egalitarian, I will give this book five stars.
Rating:
Summary: All welfare reformers should read Rawls.
Review: In an era in which Reactionaries decry the essential components of the social contract and seek to reconstruct what is essentially a "command and control" hierarchy informed by Industrial ideals of governance and Aristotelian ideas of social "location," Rawls stands alone as a thinker who can cogently and lucidly reconcile the manifestations of everyday life with the essential humanity of democratic ideals. Rawls is the contemporary voice of a line of thought which has guided our republican system of governance away from its inbuilt potential for dehuminization for over two hundred years. His ideas, when wielded in the proper hands, will become crucial tools for navigating the global dynamics of 21st century democracy.
Rating:
Summary: Only an academic could be so dumb...
Review: In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I agree with just about nothing this man says. But other writers I disagree with just as much are not nearly so galling. The intellectual pretension in this book is absolutely breathtaking in its scope, and books like this give contemporary philosophy a bad name: first comes the conclusion, followed by the 800 pages of academic diarrhea necessary to justify it. It's a good general rule that anything that needs such a complex justification is probably unjustifiable. My biased interpretation of Rawls' main thesis: strip people of all characteristics that would lead them to define justice differently than Rawls, and however they define justice is what society ought to follow. It is astonishing that for decades in academic circles this thesis has given Rawls acclaim comparable to the Beatles. Thus, the chief objection to _A Theory of Justice_ is not so much the naive ideas themselves, but the titanic chasm between how irrelevant the book deserves to be and how well-received the book actually was. Most people reading this book probably encounter it in a college class under a professor who thinks Rawls is nothing short of brilliant. They shouldn't give up on the discipline without first reading Robert Nozick's _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_, which is the perfect antitude for the noxious "philosophy" contained herein. Nozick answers, and destroys, Rawls' silliness--point by point. A more acerbic, perhaps more satisfying, rebuttal to Rawls is anthologized, I believe, in Ayn Rand's _Philosopy: Who Needs It_, although mentioning Ayn Rand in a college paper is just about the only surefire way to fail a course.
Rating:
Summary: A towering giant
Review: It never ceases to amaze me that people will try, in the space of a capsule review, to lodge an argument against the most towering and imposing philosophical work of the 20th Century. Thousands of philosophers of all political pursuasions have analyzed the work of Rawls both inside and out, in every possible dimension, to make him the most written-about philosopher of our time. None have been able to coherently disarm his central tenets, and no dobut many a lifetime will be spent in the attempt. I implore the reader to ignore these reviews, and give this book a serious, sustained study. Even those who disagree will never able able to approach political philosophy the same way again. However, "it is a long book, and not just in pages..."
Rating: 
Summary: The starting point for contemporary political philosophy
Review: It seems as though an enormous number of the reviews here are from amateur philosophers who rate the book according to how closely they agree with its conclusions, and if the level of agreement is low, go on to give an argument (usually involving a shallow misreading of Rawls) instead of a review. I suggest not taking these into account too heavily. FWIW, I'm among those who thinks Nozick's response to Rawls is brutally on target -- but ToJ is nevertheless a subtle and important piece of political philosophy. If anything, the book is valuable precisely because in seeing why it goes wrong (which is hardly as simple as some of the other reviews make it sound) we get a clearer notion of what features an adequate account of justice would need to have. Rather than accepting some glib dismissal, I suggest picking up the book and grappling with the arguments yourself. Rawls is not exactly exciting to read (as opposed to, say, Nozick) but this is in part because he is admirably rigorous and methodical, taking pains to distinguish opposed views (he considers several different versions of Utilitarianism, for example, rather than treating it as a monolithic theory) and outline precisely how and why they differ from his own. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, ToJ is absolutely a prerequisite for almost any serious engagement with contemporary political philosophy, which takes place very much in the shadow of Rawls.
| 
