A cooperação equitativa é um conceito central da filosofia de John Rawls e possui uma estreita relação com as noções de racionalidade, razoabilidade e tolerância. Portanto, faz-se necessário ressaltar que tais temas são fundamentais para uma adequada compreensão da teoria rawlsiana de justiça. Rawls elege a justiça como virtude primária e princípio norteador na construção da sua teoria. Em virtude disso, a preocupação de Rawls é a resolução das desigualdades sociais que ocorrem nos sistemas políticos democráticos. A (...) noção de justiça como equidade faz-se indispensável frente à necessidade de eleger a liberdade enquanto preocupação com o justo equilíbrio e ao “consenso nas sociedades plurais”. É a partir da concepção de cooperação equitativa que Rawls tenta resolver o impasse contemporâneo da convivência de diferentes doutrinas abrangentes razoáveis sejam elas, religiosas, filosóficas ou morais. Dessa forma, a teoria rawlsiana de justiça tem como proposta a “coexistência pacifica” ante essa pluralidade de doutrinas compreensivas. Assim posto, a justiça como equidade, pode plausivelmente, ser a forma mais viável de coexistência pacífica que agrupamentos sociais poderiam seguir ou se pautar. Sob essa ótica, acredita-se que a noção de cooperação equitativa rawlsiana será uma via de justiça que enfatiza os direitos individuais sem desmerecer aquilo que é próprio do coletivo. Abstrac t: Fair cooperation is a central concept of J. Rawls´s philosophy and keeps a close relationship with the the notions of rationality, reasonability, and tolerance. Thus it is important to claim that these notions are necessary for a correct comprehension of rawlsian theory of justice. Rawls claims justice as the primary virtue and main principle of his theory. The aim of Rawls is to solve the social inequalities that occur in democratic political systems. The concept of justice as fairness is essential before the need of electing the liberty as concerning to the just balance and to the “consensus in the plural societies”. By starting from the conception of fair cooperation Rawls tries to solve the contemporary problem of different comprehensive doctrines sharing the same political and social space, no matter they are religious, philosophical or moral ones. The rawlsian theory of justice claims to propose as “pacific cohabitation” among that plurality of comprehensive doctrines. In this way, justice as fairness may plausibility be the most viable form of pacific cohabitation that social groups can follow or be ruled. Under this perspective, we believe that the rawlsian concept of fair cooperation will be a way of justice that focus on individual rights without deprive the significance of collective. Keywords : Rawls, fair cooperation, original position, rationality, reasonability. (shrink)

Pretendeu-se dissertar sobre a segunda conferênciada obra O Liberalismo Político de John Rawls. A exposição trata dométodo de justificação do autor, concentrada nos termos racionalidade(concepção de bem) e razoabilidade (senso de justiça);subsequentemente aborda as variáveis – cooperação, voluntariedade,autonomia, limites do juízo, discordância, pluralismo, reciprocidade,imparcialidade, publicidade, justificação, democracia e tolerância. Nessesentido, parte-se da obra supracitada para a sistematização da teoria eresolução de problemas: uma referência histórica em Kant; uma respostaàs hipóteses comunitaristas; a convergência de modelos de justificação,sobretudo uma (...) deontologia com uma concepção substancial de justiça; eos argumentos epistemológicos fundacionistas e coerentistas. Conclui-se,além da unidade da obra, a tipificação contratualista na história daFilosofia, um compatibilismo ético e o caráter epistemológico coerentista. (shrink)

O objetivo deste artigo é estabelecer algumas considerações sobre o papel dos procedimentos de posição original e equilíbrio reflexivo na teoria da justiça como equidade de John Rawls, nas obras A Theory of Justice, Political Liberalism e Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Eu pretendo mostrar que Rawls faz uso de um modelo coerentista-pragmático de justificação dos princípios de justiça em um âmbito público, que é não-fundacionalista em razão da interconexão entre estes procedimentos.

Este artigo analisa a crítica de Jürgen Habermas a teoria da justiça de John Rawls. Para tanto, serão apresentados, primeiro, os conceitos básicos da teoria de Rawls e, num segundo momento, a crítica feita por Habermas relacionada a três questões fundamentais, a saber, posição original, consenso sobreposto e autonomia.

O presente artigo visa analisar a proposta construtivista rawlsiana na qual se pode visualizar a influencia da teoria da escolha racional da filosofia prática kantiana. Rawls, apesar de declarar-se herdeiro de Kant, assume sua própria concepção construtivista, a saber, um construtivismo político, enquanto que o filósofo alemão, segundo ele, apresenta um construtivismo moral fundamentado no idealismo transcendental. A posição original, por sua vez, situa as partes de maneira equitativa considerando-as iguais e livres. Assim, a construção dos princípios da justiça (...) nesta posição é autônoma, ou seja, a escolha é realizada sem influências heterônomas, tais como classe social, talentos pessoais, etc. A proposta da justiça como equidade é a construção de princípios básicos endossados publicamente os quais regem de maneira justa a estrutura básica da sociedade democrática. (shrink)

RESUMO O objetivo do presente trabalho é propor, mediante o papel que a relação entre método e objetivos desempenha em "A theory of justice", uma possível leitura da abordagem contratualista sui generis adotada por Rawls em sua obra-prima. De modo particular, aproveitaremos, como ponto de partida, duas críticas que Onora O'Neill apresenta em uma de suas últimas intervenções sobre o pensamento de Rawls. Tentaremos mostrar, então, como tais críticas padecem de certa inconsistência, na medida em que for enfatizada a complementaridade (...) entre alguns aspectos metodológicos e os objetivos gerais assumidos em "A theory of justice", sobretudo, no que diz respeito à caracterização da posição original como situação ideal de deliberação entre agentes racionais que se reconhecem como livres e iguais em sua pluralidade. Nesse sentido, concentrar-nos-emos na interpretação do nexo entre o véu de ignorância e o equilíbrio reflexivo como momento constitutivo de um processo de reflexão prática em que interagem, sem contradição, racionalidade lógicoformal e razoabilidade das restrições. Daí, indicaremos, em linhas gerais e de maneira absolutamente provisória, em que termos nos parece possível compatibilizar construtivismo e contratualismo em "A theory of justice". ABSTRACT The aim of this paper is to propose, through the role that the relationship between method and objectives plays in "A theory of justice", a possible reading of the contractarian sui generis approach adopted by Rawls in his masterpiece. In particular, we will take advantage, as a starting point, of two critical objections that Onora O'Neill presents in one of her latest interventions on Rawls' thought. Then, we will try to show how such critical objections are somewhat insubstantial, to the extent that the complementarity between some methodological aspects and the general objectives assumed in "A theory of justice" is emphasized, especially with regard to the characterization of the original position as ideal situation of deliberation among rational agents who recognize themselves as free and equal in their plurality. In this sense, we will focus on the interpretation of the link between the veil of ignorance and the reflective equilibrium as a constitutive moment of a process of practical reflection in which logical-formal rationality and reasonableness of restrictions interact, without contradiction. Hence, we will indicate, in a general and absolutely provisional way, in which terms it seems possible to reconcile constructivism and contractualism in "A theory of justice". (shrink)

O impacto e a relevância da teoria econômica para o desenvolvimento de A Theory of Justice são, frequentemente, deixados de lado na imensa literatura a respeito das obras de John Rawls. Ainda assim, entender os elementos de economia política na obra de Rawls é fundamental para a compreensão dos motivos pelos quais ele abandonará uma abordagem utilitarista para a filosofia política e, consequentemente, par a noss o entendiment o das principais questões que dão origem à noção de justiça como (...) equidade. Este artigo tem dois objetivos principais: primeiramente, descrever a influência de John Stuart Mill, Kenneth Arrow e Vilfredo Pareto na virada metodológica encontrada na ideia de posição original; segundo, descrever os elementos históricos pressupostos para a compreensibilidade dos ideais rawlsianos. Concluirei com algumas observações que sugerem um complemento historicista e fenomenológico para as descrições ideais encontradas no liberalismo político tal como é entendido por Rawls. (shrink)

Neste artigo pretendo apresentar a crítica de Michael Sandel à concepção de pessoa na filosofia política de John Rawls. Para tanto, é preciso descrever, em linhas gerais, a descrição rawlsiana das partes na posição original. Esta descrição, segundo Sandel, pressupõe uma concepção metafísica de pessoa na medida em que apresenta o “eu anterior a seus fins”, ou seja, um “eu distinto dos fins que possui”, mas que detém a posse de tais fins. Sandel argumenta que o “eu”, pensado (...) desta forma, constitui-se como um “eu radicalmente desprovido de corpo”, pois não está inserido em sua situação. E, como solução, Sandel sugere que o eu seja um entendido enquanto “eu situado” nas práticas sociais existentes e, por isso, constituído de seus fins e não, simplesmente, distinto deles. Sandel argumenta a favor da noção de “autoconhecimento” como elemento de reconhecimento dos vínculos constitutivos do “eu” dentro da comunidade. Com base nestas criticas, Rawls responde que a sua abordagem está restrita á concepção política de pessoa e, não necessariamente, possui implicação metafísica. Ele sugere que a sua justificação para a concepção política de pessoa encontra-se fundamentada na cultura pública democrática que enfatiza o pluralismo razoável como um fato da vida moderna, mas, ainda assim, Rawls terá que responder aos questionamentos de Sandel quanto à explicação que ele dá como justificação pública para as instituições democráticas, dentro das quais, as concepções políticas de pessoa e de justiça se desenvolvem. Summary: This paper deals with Michael Sandel’s criticism to the conception of person in John Rawls’ political philosophy. I will make a presentation of Rawls’ position initial and then to analyse the reply of Sandel by focusing on the question concerning the metaphysical conception of person. Then I will present Rawls’ answer to the question as a political conception of person and the limits of such proposal concerning the public justification of democratic institutions. Keywords : Michael Sandel. John Rawls. Justiça. Person. Community. (shrink)

O artigo visa discutir o papel que a obra de John Rawls possui para o projeto teórico de Rainer Forst. Trata-se de acompanharas principaisleituras que Forst realiza sobre esse autor e discutir algumas consequências que podem ser delas depreendidas para seu modelo crítico. Assim, em primeiro lugar, discute-se a tentativa de Forst em aproximar os critérios de reciprocidade e universalidade, de seu princípio de justificação, à teoria de Rawls, ao mesmo tempo em que acusa Rawls de que sua configuração (...) da posição original atribui conteúdos substantivos aos princípios de justiça, que, na verdade, só poderiam ser concebidos comoum princípio fundamental de justificação (I). Em seguida, observa-se a leitura que Forst realiza sobre o debate entre Habermas e Rawls, a fim de extrair uma alternativa a ambos. Novamente Forst faz um movimento de aproximação e crítica a Rawls (II). Em um terceiro momento, examina-se outra tentativa de aproximação e superação à obra de Rawls, mas dessa vezatravés da distinção entre duas imagens da justiça(III). Por fim, o artigo apresenta duas interpretações gerais sobe essas leituras: que existem certas constantes nos argumentos que unem e que pretendem superar Rawls; e que contém possíveis problemas,com consequências que ocasionam certos entraves para sua teoriaem sua pretensão de ser crítica. (shrink)

Resumo: O presente artigo tem como objetivo propor uma hipótese para superação das críticas feitas por Robert Nozick e Michael Sandel à teoria da justiça de John Rawls, no que concerne à necessidade de se considerar aspectos históricos e práticos, na formulação de princípios na posição original. Para tanto, é preciso analisar inicialmente as correntes filosóficas do liberalismo, do libertarianismo e do comunitarismo, a fim de fundar as bases necessárias ao desenvolvimento do estudo. Na sequência, será apresentada a (...) teoria da justiça de John Raws, seguida das críticas formuladas pelo libertário Robert Nozick, no que se refere à necessidade de se levar em conta o princípio histórico. Nozick comprova, por meio do exemplo de Wilt Chamberlain, como aspectos históricos podem alterar as estruturas pré-estabelecidas pelas teorias de estado final. Após, serão examinados os apontamentos feitos por Michael Sandel, especialmente no que concerne ao individualismo metodológico. Sandel também chama a atenção para o fato de que, para garantir efetividade aos princípios, é preciso que os indivíduos se utilizem de sua experiência e das particularidades da comunidade e de seus integrantes. Ao final, será sugerida uma proposta de superação das críticas dirigidas a Rawls, mediante a relativização da abstração da posição original.: The present article aims to overcome the criticisms made by Robert Nozick and Michael Sandel of John Rawls’ theory of justice, specifically with regard to the need for considering historical and practical aspects in the formulation of principles in the original position. We first analyze the philosophical currents of liberalism, libertarianism, and communitarianism, in order to lay the foundations necessary for the development of the study. Next, Rawls’ theory of justice is presented, followed by the critique made by the libertarian Robert Nozick of the need to consider the historical principle. Nozick proves, through the example of the American basketball player Wilt Chamberlain, how historical aspects can alter structures that are pre-established by theories of final state. Michael Sandel’s observations are then analyzed, especially with regard to methodological individualism. Sandel draws attention to the fact that to ensure the effectiveness of principles, individuals need to draw on their experience and on the particularities of the community and its members. Finally, a proposal is made for overcoming the criticisms directed at Rawls; this is achieved by relativizing the abstraction of the original position. (shrink)

RESUMENReconstrucción teórica de nuestras intuiciones a propósito de la justicia social, la Teoría de la justicia de John Rawls debía tomar en consideración a los más desfavorecidos a través del principio de diferencia que reparte los bienes de manera equitativa. Para Rawls, la objetividad moral está garantizada por la experiencia del posicionamiento original, caracterizada por el velo de ignorancia. Amartya Sen cuestiona ese planteamiento criticando el índice de los bienes básicos. Este artículo explicita lo que está en juego en (...) este debate y desarrolla las aportaciones de la teoría de las capacidades a la reflexión contemporánea sobre las desigualdades socioeconómicas.PALABRAS CLAVERawls – Sen – teoría – pobreza – capacidadABSTRACTIn his theoretical reconstruction of our intuitions about social justice, John Rawls’s Theory of justice intended to take into consideration the worst-off due to the difference principle that distributes the goods in an equal way. For Rawls, the moral objectivity is guaranteed by the experience of the original position, characterized by the veil of ignorance that conceals particular interests. But, Amartya Sen has criticized this theory and specially the index of basic goods. This article states explicitly what is at stake in this debate and develops the contributions of the theory of capabilities to the contemporary reflection on the economic and social inequalities.KEYWORDSRawls - Sen - theory - poverty - capability. (shrink)

O impacto e a relevância da teoria econômica para o desenvolvimento de A Theory of Justice são, frequentemente, deixados de lado na imensa literatura a respeito das obras de John Rawls. Ainda assim, entender os elementos de economia política na obra de Rawls é fundamental para a compreensão dos motivos pelos quais ele abandonará uma abordagem utilitarista para a filosofia política e, consequentemente, par a noss o entendimento das principais questões que dão origem à noção de justiça como equidade. (...) Este artigo tem dois objetivos principais: primeiramente, descrever a influência de John Stuart Mill, Kenneth Arrow e Vilfredo Pareto na virada metodológica encontrada na ideia de posição original; segundo, descrever os elementos históricos pressupostos para a compreensibilidade dos ideais rawlsianos. Concluirei com algumas observações que sugerem um complemento historicista e fenomenológico para as descrições ideais encontradas no liberalismo político tal como é entendido por Rawls. (shrink)

Though the revised edition of A Theory of Justice, published in 1999, is the definitive statement of Rawls's view, so much of the extensive literature on Rawls's theory refers to the first edition. This reissue makes the first edition once again available for scholars and serious students of Rawls's work.

This book originated as lectures for a course on political philosophy that Rawls taught regularly at Harvard in the 1980s.

John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice has reoriented western philosophic thought, starting a new period of reflection on justice. Designed so as to offer “one” theory, this work does not present a dogmatic purpose; however, it does propose principles of justice, resulting from a hypothetical original agreement, to constitute what it calls “justice as fairness”, characterized by the foundation of the rules of “fair” in the institutions. Through the “veil of ignorance” imposed to men in their “original position”, Rawls (...) makes the design of such principles the result of a rational common sense among individuals, trying to achieve a moral ideal that works as an alternative for the utilitarian doctrine and as the basis for a fair democratic society. The importance of Rawls’s complete work can be assessed by the great attention and comments it has received in the academic world, becoming responsible for the rebirth of discussions related to fundamental issues concerning ethics and political philosophy. This has not prevented criticism to the author’s thinking from arising. The paper aims demonstrate that the vehement disagreement used by Rawls’s critics when attacking the argument of original sense decreases the importance of his theory. (shrink)

John Rawls’s writings on just war, though limited, shed important light on the ethics of political violence. This chapter explores Rawls’s contribution to just war theory, paying particular attention to how he differs from his contemporary, Michael Walzer, as well as from future methodological sympathizers, the “revisionists,” who also turn to analytical philosophy to draw insights about just war. In contrast to the “revisionists,” however, Rawls does not take the reductive individualist turn. Rather, he extends the original position that (...) defines the domestic setting to peoples inhabiting the international level. This assumption sets the stage for his theorizing about just war, which tracks closely with Kant (on democratic peace theory) and Walzer (on supreme emergency), while offering insights into just war against “outlaw” states, individual conscientious objection in response to unjust wars, and the role that just war tenets might play in setting the stage for peace. Ultimately, Rawls’s thinking about the place of political collectives in the international domain offers insights for better navigating the methodological disagreements between traditional and revisionist views of just war from a largely untapped but analytically rigorous, perspective. (shrink)

This book is the first detailed reconstruction of the late work of John Rawls, who was perhaps the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century. Rawls's 1971 treatise, A Theory of Justice, stimulated an outpouring of commentary on 'justice-as-fairness,' his conception of justice for an ideal, self-contained, modern political society. Most of that commentary took Rawls to be defending welfare-state capitalism as found in Western Europe and the United States. Far less attention has been given to Rawls's 2001 book, (...) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. In the Restatement, Rawls not only substantially reformulates the 'original position' argument for the two principles of justice-as-fairness but also repudiates capitalist regimes as possible embodiments. Edmundson further develops Rawls's non-ideal theory, which guides us when we find ourselves in a society that falls well short of justice. (shrink)

Cosmopolitans including Charles Beitz, David Richards, Brian Barry, Thomas Pogge and Gillian Brock propose the device of an original global position to work out global principles of justice. However, John Rawls does not agree with this kind of proposal. In this paper, I add two key original contributions, which go beyond previous arguments by cosmopolitans and advance the current debates. First, to argue against Rawls’s objection to the global original position, I demonstrate the importance of the distinction between accepting (...) a particular substantive principle and accepting the original position procedure. Second, in order to respond to cultural pluralism, I take a unique approach to show that the idea of the person as free and equal is a fundamental part of the global public culture by examining the most fundamental legal documents: the proto-constitutional documents in international law and the constitutions of the major states. I apply Samuel Huntington’s classification of civilisations to identify the major civilisations and their core states and show that the idea of the person as free and equal is implicit in the constitutions of most influential countries even though these countries are categorised in different civilisations. (shrink)

Critics have maintained that John Rawls’s theory of justice is unrealistic and undemocratic. Andrius Gališanka’s incisive intellectual biography argues that in misunderstanding the origins and development of Rawls’s argument, previous narratives fail to explain the novelty of his philosophical approach and so misunderstand his political vision.

Objectivo do presente artigo é, antes de mais, verificar qual a concepção de Identidade Pessoal na Posição Original pressuposta por Rawls em Uma Teoria da Justiça e também em Liberalismo Político. Embora Rawls defenda que a concepção de Identidade Pessoal de que a teoria da justiça necessita é neutra e abstracta, a autora do artigo procura, concretamente à luz da análise de três dimensões da Identidade Pessoal (cognitiva, metafisica e narrativa) na filosofia da mente e da acção, decidir se (...) tal posição é ou não defensável. /// Aim of the present article is first of all to characterize the Rawlsian conception of personal identity in the original position (both in A Theory of Justice and in Political Liberalism). Rawls sometimes claims that the conception of personal identity necessary for his theory of justice is abstract and neutral, but that claim must be assessed. The author of the article assesses that claim precisely from the point of view of contemporary philosophy of mind and action. Three dimensions of the problem of personal identity -cognitive, metaphysical and narrative - are thus analysed in order to bring forth the ways in which decisions concerning each dimension weigh on the Rawlsian theory of justice. (shrink)

John Rawls 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. This book introduces his central ideas and examines their contribution to contemporary political thought. In the first part of the book Catherine Audard focuses on Rawls' conception of political and social justice and its justification as presented in his groundbreaking A Theory of Justice. This (...) includes sustained examination of Rawls' moral philosophy and its core thesis, the primacy of justice, the complex relation between Rawls' views and utilitarianism, and his most famous concept, the Original Position Device. In the second half of the book, Audard explores Rawls' more practical concerns for stability and political consensus, citizenship and international justice, and shows the continuity between these concerns and his earlier work. Throughout, Audard contextualizes Rawls' ideas by giving a sense of their historical development, which underlines the intellectual cohesion of his thought. The move between ethics and politics so characteristic of Rawls' work, and which makes for the richness of his philosophy, is shown to also create for it significant problems. John Rawls combines clear exposition with insightful analysis and provides an interpretative and critical framework that will help shape ongoing debates surrounding Rawls' work. (shrink)

Citizens in a democratic society have and believe in different worldviews. They have different conception of right and wrong, religion, lifestyle and even forms of interpersonal relationship but there exist only one law within a country. Rawls brings forth the idea of political liberalism and wonders how a stable and just society of free and equal citizens can remain stable when divided by reasonable but incompatible doctrines. He holds that the need to impose a unified law poses the problem of (...) legitimacy and stability and if successfully put in place, justice must have been done to the citizens. He developed a concept that he deemed the ‘original position’, which gives people a chance to decide on the principles of justice from a ‘veil of ignorance’. This original position is a hypothetical situation where no one has any advantage over another. Behind this veil, all individuals are free and equal beings in the society. They do not know anything of themselves, their natural abilities, or their position in the society in which they live. Would they choose differently if they weren’t aware of these things? Would their society be less judgmental? According to Rawls, the people in the original position, behind the said veil of ignorance would adopt principles that would and regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages in the society. The present instability in the Cameroon’s educational welfare could have been avoided if these social services were equally distributed. (shrink)

Those who criticize as well as those who nowadays defend constructivism in metaethics consider John Rawls’s constructivism to be incomplete. According to them, his ontological agnosticism makes evident this incompleteness; I question this widely accepted charge. I propose an alternative interpretation, according to which Rawls’s agnosticism is the effect of his metaethics rather than a lack of metaethics. Thanks to this interpretation, I question the originality and attractiveness of Rawls’s metaethics. My claim is that Rawls’s metaethics adequately captures the (...) specific historical nature of political norms. (shrink)

This paper examines a remarkable document that has escaped critical attention within the vast literature on John Rawls, religion, and liberalism: Rawls's undergraduate thesis, "A Brief Inquiry into the Meaning of Sin and Faith: An Interpretation Based on the Concept of Community" (1942). The thesis shows the extent to which a once regnant version of Protestant theology has retreated into seminaries and divinity schools where it now also meets resistance. Ironically, the young Rawls rejected social contract liberalism for reasons (...) that anticipate many of the claims later made against him by secular and religious critics. The thesis and Rawls's late unpublished remarks on religion and World War II offer a new dimension to his intellectual biography. They show the significance of his humanist response to the moral impossibility of political theology. Moreover, they also reveal a kind of Rawlsian piety marginalized by contemporary debates over religion and liberalism. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Welfare states are often urged to secure a social minimum for citizens—a level of material well‐being beneath which no‐one should be permitted to fall. This paper examines the justification for such a claim. It begins by criticising John Rawls's rejection of the social minimum approach to justice in A Theory of Justice: the argument Rawls uses to justify the Difference Principle, based on what he calls ‘the strains of commitment’ in the ‘original position’, actually provides a better justification (...) for a social minimum principle. The paper then examines the substance of that argument outside the context of Rawls's contractarianism, showing that there is a general case for seeing to it that desperate need does not go unmet in a liberal society. (shrink)

John Rawls is widely considered one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century, and his highly original and influential works play a central role in contemporary philosophical debates. Given the vast scholarship written in response to his work, students and scholars need some guidance in finding and understanding the central debates and arguments. This book meets this need like no other collection has before. This collection of original essays is divided into ten parts, with each part (...) covering a major area of philosophical debate inspired by Rawls's work. In each part, there is an introductory essay, providing an overview of the relevant arguments from Rawls's work and the historical contours of the debate that ensued. Each introductory essay is followed by two essays written by scholars who take opposing positions on the debate, moving the debate forward in a fruitful way. (shrink)

La "posición original" es un aspecto fundamental de la teoría de la justicia de John Rawls, así como el concepto del "velo de ignorancia". El análisis se divide en tres momentos: en el primero, se expone la posición original de Rawls, en el segundo se contrasta la teoría de la razonabilidad de Scanlon con el papel que tiene la razonabilidad en la teoría de Rawls y en el tercero se exploran los señalamientos de Habermas y Benhabib al velo de (...) ignorancia. (shrink)

John Rawls’ main purpose in The Law of Peoples is to extend his social contract theory to the peoples’ society, establishing the general principles that should be accepted by liberal and non-liberal societies, regulating the relationships between peoples. This paper pretends to analyze and demonstrate that Rawls’ law of peoples is considered to be an ethnocentrically theory, and therefore, difficult as a regular proposal for today’s world.

In this article I interpret John Rawls’s concept of the original position as a spiritual exercise. In addition to the standard interpretation of the original position as an expository device to select principles of justice for the fundamental institutions of society, I argue that Rawls also envisages it as a “spiritual exercise”: a voluntary personal practice intended to bring about a transformation of the self. To make this argument, I draw on the work of Pierre Hadot, a philosopher and (...) classicist, who introduced the idea of spiritual exercises as central to ancient and modern conceptions of philosophy. By reading Rawls alongside Hadot, this article portrays Rawls as a thinker deeply concerned with the question of how subjects can lead more just and fulfilling lives. It also proposes that the original position as a spiritual exercise can help defend liberalism as a social and political doctrine. (shrink)

ABSTRACT John Rawls proposed two criteria for the delimitation of acceptable inequalities. The universal gain principle requires inequalities to be beneficial for all, and the difference principle requires them to be beneficial for the least advantaged. These principles are commonly believed to have originated in Rawls’s work, but they were both clearly expressed in the writings of Nicolas de Condorcet. Contrary to Rawls, Condorcet did not imbed them in the framework of a social contract, but instead sought their foundations (...) in natural rights. Whereas Rawls recommends us to find out what social arrangements rational reasoners would choose in a hypothetical pre-social situation, Condorcet proposes that we ask the underprivileged in our society whether or not they consider themselves to benefit from the prevailing social and economic inequalities. Thus, Condorcet’s original version of the difference principle puts social inequalities to a different test than its latter-day, hypothetical version. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:John Rawls's Originary Theory of JusticeEric Gans (bio)The fundamental thesis of generative anthropology is that the principal concern of human culture is and has been from the outset to defer the potential violence of mimetic desire. To this mode of thought, constructing a model of the good society in any but the general terms of "exchange" and "reciprocity" is unfaithful to the human community, whose operations have been (...) from the beginning beyond the grasp of any individual mind within the society, and in which since the rise of the market system we participate largely unmediated by ritual. Rather than providing a template for the "good society," originary thinking provides a touchstone for ethical progress: act so as to contribute to reciprocal exchange, negatively, by aiding those who need help to participate in the exchange system more fully, and positively, by creating new foci of desire that enrich the system of exchange, the circulation of desire and satisfaction. The result of these acts is to reduce or "defer" resentment, negatively, by removing grievances, and positively, by creating new opportunities for recycling resentment into productive activity.These precepts notwithstanding, the "moral model" of reciprocal exchange, as exemplified in the exchange of signs around the sacred center in the hypothetical originary event, provides the basis for a recurrent temptation to create utopias. The theoretical gesture of measuring a given social order against a moral ideal is an extension of the moral intuition we apply in judging all human actions; whatever our degree of resignation, we cannot help but resent any suggestion—even when it is "objectively" false—that we have been victims of a failure of reciprocity. Both the theory and the personal intuition are direct descendants of the originary exchange of representations, as are the moral "theories" that are explicitly grounded in the sacred. Abstract moral theorizing must ultimately appeal to either transcendence or intuition, and the appeal to the former differs only in its rhetoric from the appeal to the latter.Finally, these "timeless" reflections must be situated in history. Determining the proper relationship between universal morality and historically [End Page 149] particular ethics poses a particularly acute problem in the postmodern era. The question that has remained with us since the end of World War II is how to overcome the paralysis of Auschwitz—how to acknowledge the necessary deferral of reciprocity without condoning genocide. If we hold history's institutions to the touchstone of the moral model, they will always be found wanting, yet this historical experience tells us that if we do not so hold them, anything is possible. The fact that accusations of Nazism (or "fascism") continue to be made today—notably against Israel itself—is a sign that the moral dilemma has not yet been resolved. But unlike metaphysical thought, originary thinking takes the Holocaust as a sign not of the need to construct a social model that will resolve this dilemma, but of the inappropriateness of confronting it directly. Making the world a better place not only does not require but is in fact incompatible with a prior image of the world made good.The most serious attempt by mainstream Anglo-American social thought to grapple with this postmodern quandary is that of the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002), whose A Theory of Justice (1971) remains the era's most important work of moral philosophy. To sum up in my own terms Rawls's basic idea: if we imagine ourselves in an "original position" when society has not yet come into existence, so that our (future) place in it is hidden from us by a "veil of ignorance," then we will be able to agree on the criteria of a good society, since our uncertainty will convince us all equally of the necessity to protect ourselves from unfairness in the event we are assigned one of society's less desirable roles. We may then accept this imaginary agreement, unbiased by the participants' knowledge of their eventual social role, as universal humanity's most just arrangement. Rawls considers that under these conditions any inequality in the overall distribution of social goods can be justified only if it produces a margin of... (shrink)

John Rawls, professor of philosophy at Harvard, published a paper in the Philosophical Review for 1958 called 'Justice as Fairness', followed up by various other papers, and in 1971 a large book A Theory of Justice . Rawls disagrees with the Utilitarians over their way of spelling out the idea of the happiness of mankind generally. They say: Consider whether the act, rule or institution to be evaluated is best for the happiness of mankind generally. The difficulty is that (...) often it will be both to the advantage of some people and to the disadvantage of others. The effect on the happiness of mankind generally has to be assessed by somehow balancing off the bad effects on some people against the good effects on others. There is no way of avoiding this. Some of the practical questions we have to decide do involve choice between possible courses of action all of which have good effects on some people and bad effects on others. (shrink)

Este artigo tem como objetivo analisar em que medida as ações afirmativas são compatíveis com a teoria da justiça como equidade de John Rawls. Pressupõe-se que a sua teoria da justiça é capaz de fornecer os meios para se viabilizar o acesso das pessoas menos favorecidas ao mínimo existencial e aos bens primários, assim como aos dispositivos institucionais de ascensão social e econômica. Ao que parece, a questão fundamental que deverá ser abordada consiste em saber se a teoria da (...) justiça como equidade pode, razoavelmente, ser usada como um suporte filosófico para a categoria das ações afirmativas. Portanto, busca-se verificar como um Estado democrático justo, conseguirá garantir um mínimo social que dê conta das necessidades humanas essenciais, comprometendo-se com as ações afirmativas para garantir a preservação da dignidade humana para todas as pessoas. Os agentes públicos interessados em garantir os bens primários e a igualdade equitativa de oportunidades são capazes de adotar, temporariamente, as políticas de ações afirmativas como medidas para remediar os efeitos atuais da discriminação passada, justificada sob o ideal da igualdade de oportunidades como meio de se alcançar a justiça compensatória? O que pode ser dito é que uma concepção equânime de justiça deve remover todos os obstáculos que cerceiam a realização pessoal, além de possibilitar, por meio de ações afirmativas, que todas as pessoas possam competir em situação de igualdade na corrida por bens primários. (shrink)

En este trabajo desarrollo un modelo normativo sobre la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso hacia los sujetos de investigación desde la perspectiva de la justicia social o distributiva, inspirado en la teoría de la justicia de John Rawls. Llamo a esto, el modelo de reciprocidad democrática. La idea original del modelo de reciprocidad democrática es defender que la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso tiene como derecho correlativo el derecho a la salud. Así, dentro del marco rawlsiano, argumento (...) que las razones morales que dan peso a la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso son, indirectamente, el principio de igualdad equitativa de oportunidades y, directamente, el derecho de justicia y/o el principio de equidad que se aplican a los miembros de una sociedad entendida como un sistema de cooperación social. (shrink)

Las reflexiones sobre la equidad de John Rawls, Amartya Sen y aun de John Stuart Mill resumidas en este artículo, muestran las graves carencias de la economía al suponer que todos los agentes tienen una única racionalidad, y que el mercado resuelve automáticamente la inequidad haciendo innecesaria una justicia distributiva, como lo afirmara recientemente Robert Nozick. La exclusión de la ética en las reflexiones actuales de la economía tiene su origen en una lectura incompleta y tendenciosa de autores (...) como Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill o León Walras, para quienes la economía era un discurso moral y no mera técnica para llegar a una asignación eficiente de los bienes sociales y, por lo tanto, hoy es urgente la tarea de vincular nuevamente la economía con la ética basada en el consenso, para atender los reclamos de una justicia distributiva. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Veils: The Poetics of John Rawls*George Armstrong KellyPlutarch recounts in Sais, a holy place of Egypt, the image of Isis, understood by the Greeks to be a version of Pallas Athena, bore the inscription: “I am everything that has been, that is, and that shall ever be: no human mortal has discovered me behind my veil.” 1 This recalls a very different god, Yahweh, whose claim is also (...) to compress all knowledge into an eternal present and whose dwelling, in Solomon’s temple, is in a special sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, also guarded by a veil.There, one might say, the similarity ends. Yahweh is a masculine diety (“the father of his people”), though imagistically he remains a space or an absence filled by a name (“I Am That I Am”) indicative of the transcendent distance of the eternal. Isis is a female shape imaging carnal knowledge behind her veil (with its Machiavellian, Baconian temptations). Her truth, as Plutarch makes clear, is driven by desire, truth being a “desire for divinity,” “a study... and work more holy than the vow and obligation of chastity or the guarding and sealing of any....” 2 The almost certain wages, however, for the would-be ravisher is unfulfillment and death, whereas Yahweh, having become the God of the Christians, promises eternal life through the sacrifice of his only-begotten son and a truth above knowledge “that shall make you free” (John 8:32). [End Page 343]To the Semitic mind the name expressed and represented the power of the person: God was present in a special way wherever the “Name of Yahweh” was. 3 The content of the Holy of Holies, originally portable in the ancient Ark of the Covenant, was the two stone tablets of the Law received by Moses at Horeb (1 Kings 8:9). God’s presence, once installed in the Temple of Jerusalem, was represented as “a cloud [that] filled the house of the Lord” (ibid, 8:10; cf. 2 Chronicles 5:10, 13). God was cloud; knowledge was duty. Of the physical place of this indwelling principle of knowledge, Jesus said (John 2:19): “Destroy this sanctuary: within three days I shall raise it up again.” The evangelist explains that his metaphor is transferred to the new Christian idea of the word made flesh. 4 John’s gospel does not cite the rendering of the veil of the temple, but the synoptic gospels all recount that it was “rent in twain from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:51, Mark 16:38, Luke 23:45) at Christ’s Crucifixion. The idea is essentially that knowledge as command and duty has been surpassed by a knowledge that is love in the crucified revelation of the Son of God. This returns us, ambiguously, to the image of the goddess Isis; for even in Hebrew scripture it is foretold: “The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me” (Song of Solomon 5:7). If there is here a clear prefiguration of the fate of both Christ and the temple, there is also an echo of the likely fate of the harlot Rahab, who let Joshua’s spies into Jericho, had God not saved her from the ruin of that city (Joshua 6:17).The purpose of this essay is not to dwell on obvious imagistic and psychological attachments between wisdom and sexual knowledge, but early notice of this liaison is needed to connect the philosophical discourse on veils with motifs disclosed in figurative literature. For the veil that hides the object of desire may also hide the reality of the name or of naming; preserving the veil may be a mode of love, just as challenging it is also. For example, when John Rawls writes: “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance. This ensures that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance or the contingency of social circumstances,” 5 what does his image of the veil intend to convey? What exactly is on each side of this veil? From... (shrink)

This is a polemical essay providing an historical and cultural analysis of John Rawls’s political liberalism, and arguing that the “original position” in his philosophy is not only hypothetical, but also unrealistic by virtue of ignoring comprehensive religious and philosophical points of view. Rawls attempts to derive the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity from a mere thought experiment withoutconsidering the foundational role of the Christian religion, which was instrumental in the birth and refinement of these ideas.

El presente artículo trata de ofrecer una visión panorámica de la obra de John Rawls, describiendo la evolución de su pensamiento desde su inicial y original propuesta de «Justicia como equidad», hasta sus últimas aportaciones en tomo al Liberalismo político.

A Teoria da Justiça de John Rawls apresenta princípios de liberdade e de igualdade equitativa de oportunidade destinados à construção de uma sociedade substancialmente justa. Para Rawls, sendo um empreendimento cooperativo para o benefício de todos, a estrutura social básica deve garantir vantagens a todos, especialmente aos mais necessitados. Em harmonia com a concepção de que as desigualdades sociais e econômicas somente podem ser aceitas diante da existência de vantagens efetivas dos menos afortunados, a teoria rawlsiana evidencia que os (...) sistemas econômicos não podem estar desvinculados dos princípios de justiça e das questões morais. (shrink)

Although no one can deny the profound importance of John Rawls's work in political philosophy, which covered both an original theory of justice and extensive work and teaching on the history of moral and political philosophy, we are now at the point where his contributions more clearly suggest certain historical limitations. Such topics as gender justice, racial justice, and environmental justice figured in Rawls's work only belatedly and in less than satisfactory ways. Surely the wide influence of the Rawlsian (...) revolution should suggest that the erasures and blindspots in his historical reconstructions ought to be acknowledged and addressed, rather than avoided out of some misguided conception of charity in interpretation. Key Words: exemplars • feminism • gender • Justice As Fairness • Kantianism • critical race theory • social contract • Straussianism • utilitarianism. (shrink)

Is the science of moral cognition usefully modelled on aspects of Universal Grammar? Are human beings born with an innate 'moral grammar' that causes them to analyse human action in terms of its moral structure, with just as little awareness as they analyse human speech in terms of its grammatical structure? Questions like these have been at the forefront of moral psychology ever since John Mikhail revived them in his influential work on the linguistic analogy and its implications for (...) jurisprudence and moral theory. In this seminal book, Mikhail offers a careful and sustained analysis of the moral grammar hypothesis, showing how some of John Rawls' original ideas about the linguistic analogy, together with famous thought experiments like the trolley problem, can be used to improve our understanding of moral and legal judgement. (shrink)

John Rawls is often seen as the archetypal abstract Theoretician within political philosophy. Some will also find his theory utopian and rationalist, in the negative sense. In this paper, though, the aim is to demonstrate that Rawls’ political philosophy is deeply practical. This is done by an interpretation of three different elements in his thought: Philosophical method, the original position, and publicity. The interpretations of Richard Rorty and Burton Dreben are criticized, whereas the thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Pierre Hadot, (...) and Stanley Cavell are used to clarify Rawls’ project. (shrink)

본 논문은 롤스(John Rawls)가 정치적 전환을 시도하면서 원초적 입장의 개념이 어떻게 변천했는지를 탐구한다. 원초적 입장은 『정의론』을 중심으로 하는 롤스의 전기 이론에서 공리주의의 체계적 대안을 마련하는 핵심적인 역할을 한다. 그러나 『정치적 자유주의』를 필두로 한 후기 이론에서는 중첩적 합의와 같은 새로운 개념이 중심에 서며 원초적 입장의 비중은 축소되는 듯한 양상이 나타난다. 이에 따라 한 가지 해석상의 문제가 생긴다. 후기 이론으로 오면서 원초적 입장의 역할은 구체적으로 어떻게 바뀌는가? 이 문제에 답하기 위해 본 논문은 먼저 2단계 논증을 중심으로 롤스의 정치적 전환을 추동한 동기를 (...) 추적한다. 그 후 원초적 입장이 그 역할을 상실한다는 견해, 유지한다는 견해, 그 역할이 축소된다는 견해를 순서대로 검토한다. 특히 마지막 견해는 롤스의 논증 구조가 2단계 논증에서 3단계 논증으로 변화하면서 원초적 입장의 역할이 줄어들었다고 본다. 이러한 견해는 부분적으로 설득력이 있으나, 롤스의 후기 이론에서 원초적 입장의 역할이 오히려 확대된다고 볼 만한 정황도 있다. 본 논문은 이 정황을 뒷받침하는 두 가지 근거를 제시함으로써 정치적 전환을 거치며 원초적 입장의 역할이 다변화한다는 해석을 옹호한다. (shrink)

Starting from the ‘Dewey Lectures’, Rawls presents his conception of justice within a contextualist framework, as an elaboration of the basic ideas embedded in the political culture of liberal-democratic societies. But how are these basic ideas to be justified? In this article, I reconstruct and criticize Rawls’s strategy to answer this question. I explore an alternative strategy, consisting of a genealogical argument of a pragmatic kind – the kind of argument provided by authors like Bernard Williams, Edward Craig and Miranda (...) Fricker. I outline this genealogical argument drawing on Rawls’s reconstruction of the origins of liberalism. Then, I clarify the conditions under which this kind of argument maintains vindicatory power. I claim that the argument satisfies these conditions and that pragmatic genealogy can thus partially vindicate the basic ideas of liberal-democratic societies. (shrink)

Edmundson has written an admirably concise yet powerful book. It blends a critical account of Rawls’ work with an original case for democratic socialism hewn from Rawlsian stone. In my opinion, this case has some flaws but it remains a timely contribution to the enduring quest for justice and social stability.

La teoría de la justicia de John Rawls constituye uno de los trabajos en materia de filosofía política más importantes de la última centuria, el cual, dado su enorme impacto, ha sido objeto de múltiples análisis y críticas por parte de diversos sectores y espectros de la filosofía política. El propósito de este ensayo es contribuir a ese debate, formulando una postura crítica respecto a dos instrumentos que dicen combatir y remediar las profundas desigualdades sociales que padecen nuestras actuales (...) sociedades marcadamente neoliberales: por un lado, las denominadas acciones afirmativas y, por otro, la meritocracia. Se defenderá la tesis de que ambos mecanismos pueden deducirse directamente del segundo subprincipio del segundo principio de justicia de Rawls (justa o equitativa igualdad de oportunidades), como instrumentos que aparentemente pretenden materializarlo, pero que, por el contrario, bajo ciertas condiciones especiales terminan por causar una mayor desigualdad y una justificación a ese estado de cosas inequitativo. (shrink)

O artigo desafia certa interpretação da teoria da justiça rawlsiana que a concebe como um paradigma distributivo-alocativo concentrado na “distribuição de coisas” para pessoas entendidas como “portadoras de coisas”, como objeta Iris Young na sua obra magna. Dada a influência da objeção da filósofa nos debates em teorias da justiça, na primeira seção é reconstruída sua crítica do paradigma distributivo-alocativo dos trabalhos de Rawls. Na segunda seção, com base no artigo divisor de águas de Elisabeth Anderson, é argumentado em que (...) sentido a intuição original de Young acerta no diagnóstico das desventuras dos debates distributivos da época, momento no qual se disputava o sentido do “igualitarismo social” da justiça rawlsiana. Em congruência com o diagnóstico descrito pelas autoras, Rainer Forst condensa suas intuições na célebre distinção das duas “imagens da justiça”: a distributiva-alocativa e a relacional. Ao passo que Forst concorda que no cenário contemporâneo concorre uma imagem da justiça – e do igualitarismo rawlsiano – como uma teoria distributiva-alocativa focada estritamente em distribuir recursos e bens pelas instituições; todavia, Forst argumenta que a justiça rawlsiana melhor se encaixa com a imagem relacional. Para mostrar seus aspectos relacionais, na quarta seção, são reconstruídas três ideias fundamentais de “justiça como equidade”: sociedade, pessoa e sociedade bem-ordenada. (shrink)

O objetivo central desse artigo é buscar compreender quais são as implicações filosóficas que os princípios da justiça como equidade de John Rawls tem para a política de ações afirmativas. Para tal, inicio tratando de alguns conceitos centrais na teoria da justiça como equidade, a saber, a teoria ideal e a teoria não ideal, pressupostos filosóficos indispensáveis para lidarmos com a injustiça nas sociedades não bem-ordenadas. Posteriormente, investigo acerca da importância de se articular determinados valores políticos essenciais para uma (...) sociedade democrática, buscando justificar a importância da efetivação de medidas positivas para se garantir a justiça corretiva, considerando-se que ainda há sociedades em que os princípios de justiça não são cumpridos de forma estrita. Em seguida, passo a analisar quais são os princípios de justiça que podem garantir um direito igual a um sistema adequado de direitos e liberdades, assim como, a igualdade equitativa de oportunidades para as pessoas menos favorecidas da sociedade quando se trata de acesso aos bens sociais. Por fim, proponho a ideia de que os pressupostos filosóficos da teoria da justiça como equidade justificam a implantação de políticas públicas afirmativas, o que leva a acreditar que tais ações possibilitam, por meio de medidas redistributivas e compensatórias, o desenvolvimento de uma sociedade mais justa. (shrink)

This article discusses the reception of Rawls's work in Britain. A number of difficulties are first identified in attempting to distinguish a distinctively British context of reception. Because of the extensive commonality with British political theory, Rawls's work was almost instantly absorbed within political theory in Britain. Important early criticisms focused on Rawls's methodology, his conception of the original position and his treatment of liberty. Reactions on the left indicated a failure to appreciate the extent of Rawls's egalitarianism. It is (...) further suggested that certain features of his work - its abstractness, relative lack of an historical dimension, strongly normative character, constitutionalism and anti-political bent - have fitted less comfortably within British political theory. It is also noted that Rawls's impact on political thought in Britain outside of academic political theory has been negligible. The article concludes by speculating that Rawls's influence on political theory in Britain may be on the wane. (shrink)