A Theory of Justice

I will not pretend to have read the whole thing, and anyone who claims to is frankly a liar. But the crux is basically an overhaul of traditional liberalism, bringing to moral and political thought a complicated and profoundly rational structure. This structure then acts by weighing up various political or moral issues facing the modern world, allowing us to see which is more just. The key principle resulting is 'justice as fairness.'

The starting point is the rational decision agents would come to over matters, when impeded by a 'veil of ignorance' as to who or where they are in society. The decisions they then may or may not make constitute the bulk of the book and are vastly intricate. At the other end, Rawls comes up with a liberal model for society with a maximin principle governing it. The greatest moral imperative being the maximising of the worst off. It is arguable whether the rigmarole Rawls goes through is worth it for such an obvious and relatively uninteresting principle. But the rigmarole is the point, since it sures up a left of centre political philosophy against the right wingers who would attack it (notably Nozick in 'Anarchy, State and Utopia'.)

The work is undoubtedly a masterpeice, though less enjoyable to the general reader than some good old Marx, Rousseau or Mill.


A thorough analytic treatment of social ethics.   February 25, 1998
1 out of 1 found this review helpful

Rawls exposition is clear; He defines Justice as the first virtue of society, and then defines Justice as Fairness, and proceeds from there to a description of a set of formally fair procedures for constructing a just society. Chief among those is his doctrine of "The Original Position", i.e. the situation in which a person takes no thought for personal advantage, including one's own in-born abilities, and then attempts to construct an ethical framework to guide the constitution of society. Although the work is vague, it is because he necessarily works at a very high level of abstraction. I also believe his work is -wrong- (because I think valuing human life is the first virtue of human society, not justice), but it is the clearest description of Kantian analytic social theory ever presented. As such, if it -is- wrong, it is because analytic social theories are wrong as a class, not because Rawls made mistakes. A very good book.


A brief remark to the previous reviewer   December 28, 2003
2 out of 5 found this review helpful

John Rawls' 'A Theory of Justice' is probably the most influential book in contemporary political philosophy. Among other things, Rawls introduced an alternative to the dominating non-cognitive theories in ethics and meta-ethics, which were embraced by moral philosphers after Moore, Ayer etc. The book provides an innovative theory founded on a wide range of plausible and well-established arguments for liberal equality. A book that has had such an influence on modern philosophy deserves five stars, no less.

In regards to the above comment: Stating that Nozick completely refutes Rawls' theory in 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia' is not only a wild exaggeration, but a fairly controversial claim. Certainly, Rawls' theory encounters difficulties, but this is hardly surprising. Conversely, if anyone has been successfully refuted it is Nozick, who today, has abandoned a wide range of the views he put forward in 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia'.

However, even though opinions on Rawls' theory may diverge, it is certain that moral, political, and legal philosophers today agree that 'A Theory of Justice' is an all-important work. Thus, to the extent that one is interested in contemporary moral, political or legal philosophy, reading 'A Theory of Justice' is an absolute must read.


Fascinating whether you agree or not   June 6, 1999
2 out of 7 found this review helpful

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.