Home :: Books :: Nonfiction  

Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction

Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
A Theory of Justice

A Theory of Justice

List Price: $24.95
Your Price: $24.95
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Just Read It
Review: Surely, A Theory of Justice is among the most important and influential texts in contemporary philosophy. And it is, of course, the central text in contemporary political philosophy. Want just a few reasons to think this is an important text that you ought to read? Here you go: Rawls develops and defends a new theory of justice, he provides a new way to extend some of the basic ideas in the social contract tradition, his text was crucial in resurrecting Kantian moral theory, his work has helped to bring constructivist meta-ethical positions back into prominence, the book develops some new and influential criticisms of utilitarianism, and it includes an explication of the method of reflective equilibrium and demonstrates how it can be applied in moral theory, etc.

This is a long, intricate, and densely argued book, and there's no hope of summarizing even its main claims in this review. Consequently, I'll simply aim to give a very sketchy account of the structure of his main argument here.

Rawls's theory is a theory of justice as it applies to the basic institutions of a single society. He calls his theory "justice as fairness." It is not that he thinks justice is simply fairness, or that a just society is a fair one. Rather, people choose principles of justice in a position that is supposed to be fair; their choices in this fair position determine the correct principles of justice. The principles of justice determine the nature of a just society; they apply to the basic structure of society--to its fundamental institutions. They will be understood by people who accept them as principles telling them how their society should be structured with respect to how it provides people with their basic rights and liberties, how it determines people's opportunities in life, and how it structures the institutions in which people acquire wealth and income.

The fair position for choosing these principles is what Rawls calls "the original position." His argument has the following structure: he describes the original position, and then he argues that parties in the original position would choose a particular set of principles of justice. The principles chosen constitute the correct theory of justice.

The first part of the argument is a detailed account of the original position. Parties in the original position are placed behind a veil of ignorance, where they are stripped of certain types of knowledge. In particular, they lose all the knowledge of the contingent facts concerning their own standing in life and the details of life in their society. Furthermore, they lose knowledge of their particular talents, desires, psychological traits, skills, etc. Why prefer this as a position in which principles of justice are to be chosen? The main idea is that it allows us to see the people as coming to fair terms for social cooperation, for this is supposed to be a fair situation for selecting the principles. Parties behind the veil are unable to rig the principles of justice to benefit themselves rather than others; they aren't allowed to use their position or talents to strongarm people into selecting principles that aren't to those people's benefit; and they aren't allowed to craft the principles to suit their actual needs, aims, desires, etc. However, parties in the original position do possess the sort of general knowledge about human psychology, human societies, and the natural world that would be required to choose between principles of justice.

Now, importantly, placing individuals in the original position depends on a particular moral view; this is supposed to reflect our considered judgments about justice and fairness. It is a way of drawing out what we actually think about these things. This is not a historical argument: the original position isn't supposed to be a description of some situation people were once in. Nor is this an argument grounded in some account of human nature and psychology: the parties in the original position aren't supposed to reflect something of importance about human psychology. (One should see section 40 for an account of this as a Kantian conception of justice, though. Here Rawls may be resting his theory on an account of us as beings of a certain sort. But, again, this is a philosophical and moral account of persons; this isn't the sort of thing you're going to find out about by doing ordinary sociology, anthropology, or psychology.)

In the next part of his argument Rawls claims that parties in the original position would agree upon the following principles of justice. The first principle is that individuals are to possess greatest amount of basic rights and liberties compatible with similar rights and liberties for others. The relevant rights and liberties are the right to vote and to hold public office, freedom of thought, freedom of speech and assembly, the right to own property and to avoid unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The second principle is that there is to be fair equality of opportunity with respect to positions of authority and responsibility, and that inequalities in wealth and income are be for the benefit of all, and particularly for the benefit of the worst-off group. The first principle is to be satisfied before the second one, so rights and liberties cannot be sacrificed in the interest of securing more wealth or income for any or all people. And one should notice that these principles do not clearly imply anything about how the institutions in which people acquire wealth and income are to be ordered or regulated. This will depend on which set of institutions would actually meet the requirements set by the second principles, and this will depend on empirical facts about how the world works. Moreover, it should be pointed out that many ways of ordering and regulating these institutions will be ruled out by the first principle, irrespective of how well off they would make the worst-off group.

This, clearly, should be read by anyone interested in contemporary analytic philosophy, and it is an absolutely crucial text for people studying ethics or political philosophy.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: A Theory of Injustice
Review: The author professes above all else that the Theory of Justice is a moral philosophy founded on the notion that all men in an ideal state referred to as " The Original Position" will come to some common agreement regarding the principles of this moral philosophy. In the author's view these men will select a common principle which will increase the likelihood of their success in the non-ideal state. This common principle is that all men are equal in their access to the Goods of society and that those that turn out to be more capable must (or will) relinquish the fruits of their efforts to those that are less capable, or in the words of that other great moral philosopher (sic), Karl Marx, "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need". The redistribution of wealth therefore becomes the cornerstone of this moral philosophy. Of course as was the case with Marx the determination of who gets what and how much each receives is kind of a sticky point. But this does not deter Rawls as on he marches while straining to come up with a centrally planned and controlled society and economy. His primary means is to enshrine his moral philosophy into the laws of the society by usurping the notion of equality under the law such as it first appears in the Declaration of Independence and applying it to all attributes of men, i.e. intelligence, talent, and capabilities. By changing the definition of equality under the law to economic equality, Rawls can now proceed to argue that a democratic form of government really implies socialism. How can men be equal if some are wealthier than others, this is the real question that Rawls is trying to resolve. He resolves the question by concluding that economic inequality is immoral and must be remedied through society's laws. He argues that all reasonable men would agree with this notion assuming they were all equal at the beginning of time and before they were aware of their relative positions in society. This concept Rawl calls the veil of ignorance. In this regard Rawl draws from a common tradition extending from Plato to Sir Thomas More and Karl Marx in which an ideal society is conceived and men made to fit this ideal. Plato called it The Republic, More called it Utopia and Karl Marx called it the Communist Manifesto. In the case of Plato in particular there are parallels between the idea of the Cave in which men only see shadows of reality and Rawls original position where men only know what Rawl wants them to know prior to agreeing on a social order. Rawl takes his theory one more step by proposing a system of laws that are designed to punish all that do not agree to distribute their wealth and who refuse to exercise their talents for the benefit of society and with no return to themselves. The invisible hand of Adam Smith is replaced by the visible fist of Rawl.

Rawl also tries very hard to write God out of the moral equation. Since man's guilt and shame are sufficient to regulate most men's actions there is no need for any supernatural being to hand out punishment to those that stray from the true path as Rawl sees it. He relies on the most feeble assumptions about human nature such as altruism and empathy to make the argument that man's natural tendency is to function in society in the interest of others rather in his own self interest. Such an extreme form of empathy leads to an eventual collapse of social order. Rawl fails to realize that if one is only interested in the well being of others and one must rely on others to be interested in one's well being then one's lack of existence is of no consequence thereby leading to an unstable social order. It is only through self interest that man realizes his existence and a stable social order results. He acknowledges this conundrum by arguing that a stable society will nevertheless arise from each man agreeing to the principles of justice and enacting laws to ensure that altruism is the dominate human trait.

The true test of a successful organization of a given society is its ability to survive in a hostile world. John Rawl's proposed organization of society with its justice as fairness tenet fails this test. Therefore the strongest criticism of Rawls is its lack of survivability. The strongest vindication of the utilitarian principle which strives for the greatest good for the greatest numbers as opposed to Rawl's theory which strive for the greatest good for the average individual is the success of capitalism and the failure of socialism in satisfying the needs of society.

In the final analysis Rawl attempts to make the argument that despite the success of the utilitarian principle, i.e. capitalism, current society still has those that are in some way disadvantaged. By its nature capitalism can never solve this problem according to Rawls, since it is a zero sum game, i.e. whenever somebody wins another loses. The only way to solve this problem is by redistributing wealth so that all have equal access to the goods of society.

I do not recommend this book to anyone. If there is any value to Rawls ideas it is that they serve to vindicate the success of capitalism or the utilitarian principle rather than justify socialism as Rawl hoped. In general I do not think there is any value in Rawls ideas and just like those of Karl Marx they are truly unworthy of any serious consideration. I would recommend instead reading Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and Fredrick Hayaks "The Road to Serfdom" if one is seriously interested in social, moral, ethical and economic philosophy rooted in reality and a true understanding of man's nature.

As a final comment I noticed that Mr. Rawls (now deceased) was a professor at Harvard University. If this is an example of the level of scholarship at our most prestigious institutions then I can truly say that I do not hold out much hope for the future of Western Civilization.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Rawls lacks the tools to do philosophy
Review: The book is highly influential- for this reason I gave it two stars instead of one. Its influence is about the only recommendation one can make for reading the book, as it crops up quite frequently in academia. The argument developed in the book is actually extremely poorly thought out. The task Rawls gives us, to "go behind the veil of ignorance" is an impossible task. Even if we "pretend" to be ignorant, we are not. Indeed it is not even possible to formulate a political system while being "ignorant." We must employ intenral mental language and grapple with ideas in order to construct any system- and that is, in itself, knowledge. If Rawls had paid attention to any philosopher of language since the early Wittgenstein he would know that language, thought, and knowledge are inseparable. (Oh, I forgot, Rawls is actually a political scientist playing at being a philosopher). It appears that the person behind the veil is only ignorant when it is convenient for Rawls.

Another huge hole in his argument is the way he deals with risk. Why does Rawls assume (and this book is realy just a huge paste of unacknowledged assumptions) that humans are risk averse? This is the cornerstone of his argument- we would all choose the safest "min-max" type of society because we want to reduce our chances of getting screwed to zero. Why is that?

If I am sitting behind the veil of ignorance, why wouldn't I design a system where 90% of the people live in luxury, and 10% of the people are their slaves? I could be born a slave, but that's highly unlikely. I will most probably live quite well.

The crux of Rawls' problem, and it pervades all his works, is this; he comes up with an idea, or an opinion, and then he develops a theory to support the idea. Or did he do this giant thought experiment and discover, surprise surprise!, that he was right all along. Very convenient. Rawls is a socialist (which is fine, I am one too) who wants to cloak his socialism with the respectability of Kantian analytic "science" and thus take pleasure in the role of "the most important philosopher of the 20th century." A role he plays to the hilt.

This whole book is about enabling Rawls to posture, and students take it up because it enables them to posture as well. Lets be honest, no one likes this book because of the methodology, but because it allows them to push their agenda in a superficially high minded way. But it cannot be ignored that Rawls is employing outdated 18th century analytic methodology. Tripe- the whole lot of it.

Ultimately, Rawls has no answer for people like Nozick... which is bad, because the left is desperate for some.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: In the tradition of the great contract theorists
Review: This book has been critiqued by others from very the start. It is the depth and the scope of Rawls' work that has made it so contentious; at the same time, these are also the reasons that the book has been so influential. Rawls' blends together a rather large tradition of social contract theory--with a particular indebtedness to Kant--and has stamped it with his own unique contributions and systematizing concepts. For instance, while his original position has been held by others as problematic or naive, to criticize it one must first appreciate its affinities with the concept of the the original human nature in Hobbes, Rousseau, and other earlier theorists. _A Theory of Justice_, then, is an important work because it advances an argument that has been ongoing throughout the modern era in a particularly insightful and creative way--not because Rawls has given an absolutely new or unique view of human political and moral life.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Justice as Fairness
Review: This is one of the most important books on social philosophy written in the last century. As the other mis-informed reviews illustrate, Rawls requires careful reading and a conviction to work through his arguments. Basically, Rawls tries to argue for a theory of Justice based on non-utilitarian principles. How can we have a Just Society that preserves individual rights and at the same time functions above the level of anarchy? Tilting too far one way results in a Communistic state that places the group above the individual. Tilting too far the other way results in a state that is a "war of all against all".

Rawls proposes that we arrive at a conception of Justice using minimal assumptions. He uses something called the "Veil of Ignorance" to derive his principles of Justice. This "Veil of Ignorance" assumes we would act in our own self-interest, but we don't know where in society we would end up. Given these two principles, people actint in their own self-interest but not knowing what place they might occupy in society, Rawls argues that we would come up with two principles of Justice; 1) each person has the most extensive basic liberties that are compatible for everyone having these liberties, and 2) social inequalities will be arranged so that they benefit everyone and such that we all have equal access to beneficial social positions.

(Some reviews here apparently feel that Rawls was trying to describe an historical situation with the Veil of Ignorance. I would suggest that they actually read Rawls.)

What Rawls is arguing is that taking a very minimal assumption about human nature (we rationally act in our own self interest) and assuming that no one knows his or her eventual social position, we will come up with these two principles of Justice (Justice as Fairness). A society is Just if it provides the most extensive set of liberties possible to everyone in the society and if it contains ways to balance social inequalities and provide equal access. Most people (even the Ann Rand folk) would agree with the first principle (equal rights), but likely have problems with the second.

Most of the people writing reviews, I believe, have not really read what Rawls has written or understood what they have read. If you want to disagree with Rawls then you must meet him with argument and reason, and not vituperative comment. I may not agree with everything in this book, but I must first understand Rawls' powerful arguments and reasoning before I can propose alternative ideas. Love him or hate him, Rawls cannot be ignored and neither can this book.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: The masterpiece of 20th century political thought
Review: This work has permanently redefined the landscape of political thought in the English-speaking world. Somebody below has said that Robert Nozick completely refuted Rawls in _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_. That is, to say the least, highly debatable. Here is what Nozick says:

"_A Theory of Justice_ is a powerful, deep, subtle, wide-ranging, systematic work in political and moral philosophy which has not seen its like since the writings of J.S. Mill, if then. It is a fountain of illuminating ideas, integrated together in a lovely whole. Political philosophers now must work within Rawls' theory or explain why not."

Political philosophy since Rawls has been entirely devoted to elaborating or refuting his theory. This is not light reading, but if you are interested in political theory, it is essential reading.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Good Book, but lacks the light of reason
Review: To begin with I believe this is a very good book, if somewhat lacking in logic, and should be read no matter what your political or philosophical persuasion is. Said that, this book has one obviously, at least to me, major flaw. When he talks about the people under the veil of Ignorance, he says these people would support a number of things including the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to private property, etc... Being under this veil of ignorance assumes you have no influence from environment and no bias of any kind. Essentially you have no opinions about anything. In that situation, why would you care about the right to vote or the right to free speech? These rights require you to have opinions on different subjects, or at least the willingness to have differing opinions on subjects not only to exercise these rights but to even come up with these rights as important in the first place. If you do not have opinions, or an external thought process which is only built through environment, which is the situation Rawls is trying to build under his veil of ignorance, then you wouldn't even think of freedom of speech as an important issue, and wouldn't address it under the veil of ignorance. So even under Rawls veil of ignorance you would need environment to give you the appreciation of these rights, and because of this you would have to have not only pre conceived notions of what fairness is and how it is to be best applied based on your environment which can incorporate wealth status, life experience, etc., but you would also have views based on environment that have nothing to do with fairness and have everything to do with what is the most efficient system, which many would argue is unapologetic capitalism. Rawls theory cannot operate in a vacuum, which is what he was trying to build. You cannot say people can appreciate freedom of speech and the right to vote without differing opinions which can only come from environment on the one hand and say on the other that other experience's people bring to the table with the right to free speech and the right to vote can some how be forgotten or cut off to fulfill this veil of ignorance. Essentially, even using his example, there cannot be a veil of ignorance, at least as he describes, which makes his whole exercise invalid. It's still an interesting read though.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: The true egoism
Review: When I read this book I was into "post-colonial" theory. (All of which is directly funded by the French government, so you have to wonder how serious it is.) I didn't like it then. Chalk it up to ignorance.

Since then it has become clear that the youthful ideals I had were utterly and 100% NOT supported by the facts or the thinkers I quoted. (Foucault claimed to be a cynic in the end. Take that at face value.) The fact is, there will always be elites. Plainly not everyone has the brains or temperament to learn and do intelligent things. And the only reason anyone EVER does anything is because they have an interest in doing it, including committing suicide. ("Death always comes from the outside." Levinas)

Rawls has the best arguments for anyone who has Enlightenment values, but is enough of a realist to know utopia is very far off indeed.

Apparently the Straussists, influenced by Heidegger, claim this work is theological. The idea of an Original Position whereby you can order a just society for them is like talking about the Garden of Eden. Which point is well taken and I don't dispute. We live in a Christian world. But the difference between Rawls's theology and the Staussist's is that it's not suicidal. The Straussists preach fundamentalism to the ignorant trash and Ayn Rand/FAWV Hayek to the smarter trash. They don't mean any of it. They want to arrogate all power and wealth to themselves. They like to cite Ancient Greece and Rome to justify their aristocratic ideals.

But nota bene: Those societies, which had the pinnacles of intellectual life that we have yet to surpass, were doomed almost as soon as they were founded. In many ways we still inhabit the Roman Empire. But none of the Caesars lasted overly long. And the reason is not too far to come by: Because people in them were starved and the oppulent few horded everything, the societies toppled. They were not stable, but meta-stable, and liable to crystallize around the meanest elements. (I leave it to the reader to determine whether this is an accurate use of physical models.) As happened in France before and after the Revolution and the USSR before and after it collapsed.

The obvious lesson to be learned is that if you are an elite (and you are simply because you've read this far), you have to let everybody take a slice of the pie. Rawls provides the principles for any future pie-taking which may claim to be non-suicidal. True his position is not as consistent as an aristocrat's. Aristocrats know the truth, so everyone should obey them. But the last bunch to try to apply the Caesarist model globally (the Nazis), committed suicide fast. The justification for Rawls is not that it's right, but that is works.

Don't be a loser. Go for the gusto.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: A Brief Review of Rawls Theory of Justice
Review: While not without its critics, A Theory of Justice is a classic, essential text in any political philosophical collection. Rawls' text is followed by his more contemporary, scholarly work, Political Liberalism. But, Theory of Justice remains an important text that marked a paradigm shift from the dominance of Utilitarianism as a (moral and) political philosophy. As such, his work had been an important spring board from which this generation's ideas on political philosophy have sprung.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Fascinating whether you agree or not
Review: You don't have to think Rawls has put forward an irrefutable argument to think this is a fascinating book that develops a number of interesting lines of reasoning. Five stars for a highly original argument.

Having said that, any even slightly contemporary philosophy of mind (that incorporates any lessons from cognitive science) invalidates Rawls' Original Position. The Original Position requires the notion of a mind whose rational faculties can be completely divorced from any "situatedness" of the mind in the body, a completely obsolete Cartesian view.


<< 1 2 3 4 5 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates