My rating:

add to my books

A Theory of Justice

by John Rawls, T.M. Scanlon

3.79 · rating details · 1,346 ratings · 70 reviews

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.

Paperback, Original Edition, 624 pages

Published March 31st 2005 by Belknap Press (first published 1971)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant

Best Philosophy Book

57th out of 249 books — 208 voters

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

Politics

13th out of 147 books — 39 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 2,784)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Feb 26, 2008

Shibbie rated it

Shelves: read-for-school, own

Ok, I didn't read all of this one. Basically he argues that society should be based in a way that any good should help everyone. Against exploitation of the poorest for the benefit of the rich, which is a fair argument. However, he also argues that growth should not happen just for the rich while leaving the poor behind. Too much equalization of opportunity at the tax payers' expense for my liking. His political theory is however integral to understanding the trend of government over the pa...more

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 27, 2011

Tyler rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Fans of Philosophy, Politics

Recommended to Tyler by: Book's Reputation

Shelves: philosophy

What strikes me most as a non-philosopher reading this book is what Rawls doesn’t talk about. Libertarian ideas, the staple of American political and social discourse, receive no attention as such in this book. To the extent that libertarianism factors in at all, Rawls dismisses it so peremptorily he practically laughs at it. Yet his oblique approach does take on its precepts, as I‘ll mention later.

A Theory of Justice takes up a problem that goes back to the Enlightenment: If righ...moreWhat strikes me most as a non-philosopher reading this book is what Rawls doesn’t talk about. Libertarian ideas, the staple of American political and social discourse, receive no attention as such in this book. To the extent that libertarianism factors in at all, Rawls dismisses it so peremptorily he practically laughs at it. Yet his oblique approach does take on its precepts, as I‘ll mention later.

A Theory of Justice takes up a problem that goes back to the Enlightenment: If rights inure to individual persons, what role can society really play in our lives? Key to this paradox, it is argued, are the concepts of the good and of the right. There can be no meaningful notion of the good independent of a concept of what’s right, or just. A good society, then, cannot let its moral structure be dictated by its economic practices. The author construes justice from a Kantian standpoint and employs principles such as universalizability to make Rawls’s theory one that guarantees justice at the start, as opposed to one in which justice arises contingently from later developments.

The author dials us back to the state of nature, the famous theoretical starting point of Locke and Rousseau from which a society somehow must emerge. His unique angle is that he finds the state of nature inadequate as a starting point, so he modifies it into an “original position,” a point from which individuals can reason more effectively about the kind of social contract they ought to agree to. Here Rawls’s distinctive concept of the veil of ignorance comes into play.

Rawls advocates an objective and rational social contract theory. His book takes aim at two alternatives, utilitarianism and perfectionism. Outside dictatorships, he says, these are the two principles that actually do drive social and government policies in the rest of the world -- hence an example of the oblique swatdown of libertarian ideas. He takes apart both theories and proposes his own, based on a notion of equal liberties. Justice entails equal liberty for each person, and this principle has priority over other concepts.

Of special note, too, is Rawls’s discussion of justification. It is misguided, he argues, to justify any system on the basis of deduction or induction from starting principles. Starting principles alone will prove unable to account for a social system in its entirety. Justification for a system of social organization must come from a judgment of the system as a totality. That is, justification comes from within that system, taken as a whole. Here the critique of other ideals is less oblique, and the disagreement more contentious.

Libertarianism, this text implies, relies on principles common to many viewpoints. It’s these grounding principles that come under scrutiny throughout the book. He attacks the conflation of a self with one’s own self, dismissing theories that fail to reason objectively. Late in the book (by which I mean to say: You cannot get by reading just part of it) he critiques the idea of private society. He uses Kant to contrast people treated as ends with people treated as means, repudiating notions that derive the value of a human life from an individual’s social function. He asks what‘s really meant by “deserving“ something. Through Kant, too, he links natural rights with natural duties. Altruism he denies as a duty of justice: His original position is one of rational self-interest.

Rawls stresses the ideal nature of his theory, not its practical applications. The implication of his reasoning is that, rather than using ideals as the basis of some sort of revolution, whoever understands this theory will be able to apply it in small ways throughout society. It can also be applied piecemeal by people in authority within a society or government without having suddenly to rewrite the entire existing social arragement. The ideal theory empowers people to act on practical problems rather than dream of a perfect but unattainable future utopia.

I rate this book highly and recommend it to everyone. It is a work of philosophy that is accessible to non-philosophers, giving it a great advantage over philosophical works destined to remain within the confines of academia. It is a complete work, covering every aspect of society. It is highly innovative in its conception, a thought experiment laid out by a compelling and provocative line of reasoning. It carves out a specific niche in political thought. The proposal Rawls lays out has explanatory and predictive power. The book is perfect for people who love to read about ideas; but best of all, it satisfies the need of individuals to find some way to insert themselves into today's dramatically depersonalized social structure, a system that has arisen in our world through a mixture of complex technology and simple cruelty.

(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Feb 04, 2008

kiran Banerjee rated it

On page 432 of this hefty work, Rawls writes:

"Imagine someone whose only pleasure is to count blades of grass in various geometrically shaped areas such as park squares and well-trimmed lawns. He is otherwise intelligent and actually possesses unusual skills, since he manages to survive by solving difficult mathematical problems for a fee. The definition of the good forces us to admit that the good for this man is indeed counting blades of grass, or more accurately, his good is ...more

like 1 like

· see review

Feb 06, 2009

Brian rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

Rawls follows a long and misguided tradition of creating a nifty scheme and then insisting that morality and thus reality, change to suit his scheme. He makes some fundamental errors, such as assuming that we all value everything identically, including and especially risk. If we follow his assumptions to their logical conclusion we would all choose a purely egalitarian society where NO ONE is allowed to succeed or advance because then we would not rank as high as they or they might EARN somethin...more

· see review

Jan 12, 2012

Joshua rated it

John Rawls presents the reader with a thought experiment based on the social contract, original position, and his very own "veil of ignorance."
So this thought experiment is a hypothetical situation that is really just a very dull gambling scheme where the players must make decisions about the structure of society. The thing that's supposed to be so revolutionary is that these players aren't aware of their position in society and they don't really know anything about their own id...more

· see review

Dec 06, 2011

Farjana Chowdhury rated it

In "A Theory of Justice", John Rawls presents a conception of justice which, as he puts it, generalises and carries to a higher level of abstraction the social contract theory. So, rather than dictating the exact form of government to be applied, the persons in the Rawls' original position would, in trying to further their own interests, decide upon principles of justice to regulate the basic distributive structure of society. Concerned only with institutional justice, the theory dicta...moreIn "A Theory of Justice", John Rawls presents a conception of justice which, as he puts it, generalises and carries to a higher level of abstraction the social contract theory. So, rather than dictating the exact form of government to be applied, the persons in the Rawls' original position would, in trying to further their own interests, decide upon principles of justice to regulate the basic distributive structure of society. Concerned only with institutional justice, the theory dictates that individual distributions are just to the extent that they are made through just institutions.

Rawls’ version of the social contract differs from earlier social contract theories in some regards. First, while the original position is Rawls’ equivalent to the state of nature of some earlier theories, he stresses that the original position should not be seen as a historical state, but rather as a hypothetical situation in which the goal is to decide upon a conception of justice. Second, as mentioned earlier, Rawls’ version carries the social contract theory to a higher level of abstraction. While most other social contract theories appeal directly to the judgment of the reader in deciding how society is to be organized, Rawls takes the idea one step further by asking us to imagine to which conclusion people with certain defined properties would come when placed in the original position. Third, there are some restrictions to the choices made in the initial situation. For example, Rawls takes for granted that people in the original position would rather have some form of government than, say, anarchy. Finally, Rawls assumes that the parties in the original position are all looking to securing so-called primary goods which, according to Rawls, are things that every rational person wants, no matter what his or her goals are in life, including such things as liberties, opportunities and wealth.

The concept of justice as fairness comes, Rawls argues, not from the idea that justice and fairness are the same, but from the fact that agreements and conclusions are reached in a fair original position. Thus, since the original position is fair, the agreements reached in it are fair, too. Rawls further argues that since the conception of justice agreed upon in the original position is fair, it would bring us as close as we could come to a society in which people have explicitly consented to a certain conception of justice. The idea of justice as fairness is further enforced by the participants in the original position being rational, mutually disinterested, informed in certain areas and lacking knowledge in others. The lack of knowledge about advantageous or disadvantageous natural endowments and social circumstances eliminates a biased conception of justice.

To Rawls, it is important that the idea of justice as fairness contrasts that of utilitarianism. He argues that classical utilitarianism, in only looking to maximise utility regardless of how it is divided between individuals, does not take seriously the distinction between persons. He further claims that utilitarianism would not be chosen by the parties in the original position because of the possibility of an enormously disadvantageous division of utility. While this choice admittedly would be made entirely out of self-interest, it is nevertheless effective as an argument in favour of Rawls' idea of justice as fairness.

The principles of justice that the persons in the original position would decide upon are, as Rawls presents them in his book, the following:

1.First Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others (Liberty Principle.)

2.Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage (Difference Principle,) and attached to positions and offices open to all (Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity.)

The first and second principles form the special conception of justice while the general conception of justice is the Difference Principle applied to all social values, phrased by Rawls thus: “All social values – liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect – are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone's advantage.” Later, Rawls changes “everyone's advantage” to “the greatest benefit of the least advantaged” and “the advantage of the least favored” in the Difference Principle and the general conception of justice, respectively. This is not a change in the theory, Rawls would argue, since he holds that if the least advantaged are benefited, so will everyone else.

The general conception of justice, Rawls claims, applies to a society in which the social conditions of some restrict them from exercising their basic liberties. When that standard has been reached, the special conception of justice takes over. Within the special conception of justice, there is a lexicographical ordering of principles. The Liberty Principle is placed above the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity which, in turn, is placed above the Difference Principle. Only when the conditions of the Liberty Principle have been met does the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity come into play, and so on.

The reason for dividing the theory into the general and special conceptions of justice, as touched upon earlier, is that unless a level of adequate social conditions is reached, people cannot make use of their basic liberties. Furthermore, Rawls claims that there is a relation between the social conditions in which we find ourselves and how greatly we value liberty. As our social conditions improve, we start to value liberty more and welfare less. When we reach a point at which we value welfare and liberty equally, we can be said to have reached a level of adequate social conditions. Rawls argues that by applying the general conception of justice, this level can hopefully be reached, prompting a switch from the general to the special conception of justice.

Arguably, there are some difficulties in the application of the two conceptions of justice on a given society. For one, it seems hard to pin down exactly where to draw the line between adequate and inadequate social conditions. While Rawls does provide some guidelines for this purpose, he does not explain in detail at which point, exactly, the switch between the conceptions would take place. Presumably, the level of adequate social conditions is not invariable. Depending on the nation in which the principles of justice are to be applied, this level must be subject to some variations. For example, if the nation is wealthy, the level of adequate social conditions is presumed to rise. Nevertheless, the idea remains vague and arguably subjective.

Another difficulty is that even though the general conception of justice dictates that all social values are to be distributed so as to make the least advantaged as well off as possible, it allows for this distribution to be unequal. This means that while the worst off might reach a level of adequate social conditions, there is a possibility of inequalities growing as a consequence, which result in higher standards of living and higher requirements on people, for example in regards to work opportunities. Indeed, as the general level of well-being rises, so does the level at which we define adequate social conditions. And so, because the level of adequate social conditions constantly changes, we are just as often forced to switch between the general conception and the special conception of justice, resulting in what Rawls would like to avoid; an unstable society.
(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Dec 28, 2011

Erik Graff rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: everyone

Recommended to Erik by: David Schweickart

Shelves: philosophy

This book, assigned for Dave Schweickart's Social and Political Philosophy course, was far and away the most important book I read while studying at Loyola University Chicago. As usual, while only part of it was required for class, I read the whole of it.

Rawls' book is important for, among other reasons, being a example of applied ethics relevant to everyone, everywhere, in situations ranging from family politics to constitutional conventions. His approach is substantially Kantian ...more

· see review

Aug 12, 2008

Marc rated it

just read this (again) for my exams. I did not read the whole thing thought due to time constraints. I agree with most of his basic assumptions of justice, found some of the ways of arguing to be troublesome though (his concept of the original position for the most part).
Whoever wants to read this, needs to bring some real dedication, since Rawls is not the most vivid writers arround and these are some hefty 600 pages.

· see review

Feb 07, 2011

Andrew added it

Shelves: philosophy, analytic-philosophy

My beef with John Rawls is twofold. First, there's his seriously questionable method invoking the "veil of ignorance," which is just a spiffier version of the easy-to-discredit social contract theory. Second, he seems to arrive at remarkably dull conclusions, that liberal democracy is the best possible way of dealing with human relations. OK, so first you're assuming all the assumptions that Western post-Enlightenment classical-liberals have, and then using those assumptions to info...more

like 2 likes

· see review

Oct 19, 2011

Masha K. rated it

I read this one quite a while ago in college, back when I was in the process of choosing which Western political philosophy is most aligned with my views. My prof recommended this one as a companion/alternative to classical liberalism Locke and Hayek. I have to admit the central concept of the "original position" is an interesting one, and while Rawls uses it to justify the basic welfare state (although without excessive inter-generational redistribution or punitive taxation), it can b...more

· see review

Dec 11, 2008

Bogdan rated it

This is a very elegant book written for a highly specialized audience (trained philosophers and political scientists in the 70's). Rawls never imagined that it would become so popular, so expect jargon, painstaking theory-building and analytical investigations. Do not focus exclusively on 'the original position.' The third part, which is the part that Rawls throws away in Political Liberalism as too 'comprehensive,' has wide resources for re-thinking moral intuitions within families and even the...more

· see review

Jan 13, 2012

Tom Seedorf rated it

This book is massive and boring. Rawls is, to be sure, very clear in his writing, but the work as a whole is about as vibrant and stylish as an instruction manual. The ideas themselves fair marginally better than the writing, but only marginally. His conception of justice is powerful and would, presumably, lead to a coherent, stable, and, in most respects, just society. Many of his ideas, moreover, are admirable and would serve as a firm basis for theories of justice in most respects. He is...more

· see review

Feb 07, 2010

Wendy rated it

Shelves: philosophy, politics, library-books

So, first off: this is a work of academic philosophy. I think it's very readable and entertaining for a work of academic philosophy, but this is probably not a book to take to the beach. It also helps if you've had a basic course in philosophy, or have recently read a book like Michael Sandel's Justice, because the book will be very hard going if you don't have at least a glimmer of an idea about utilitarianism or Kantianism.

So, why read Rawls? It's often asserted that Rawls's work ...moreSo, first off: this is a work of academic philosophy. I think it's very readable and entertaining for a work of academic philosophy, but this is probably not a book to take to the beach. It also helps if you've had a basic course in philosophy, or have recently read a book like Michael Sandel's Justice, because the book will be very hard going if you don't have at least a glimmer of an idea about utilitarianism or Kantianism.

So, why read Rawls? It's often asserted that Rawls's work is the philosophical basis for modern American liberalism. I think it would be more accurate to say that most modern American liberals have a set of intuitions about justice that happen to dovetail pretty well with Rawls's philosophy. But if you are a political liberal, and you feel it's important to have a sound philosophical basis for your liberalism, you've probably got to consider Rawls's position, even if you reject it.

Rawls starts with a pretty neat philosophical conceit: the idea that a just society is one that operates by rules that everyone would agree to if they chose a set of rules from behind "a veil of ignorance". In other words, without knowing what their society would look like, what position they might occupy in it, or even what sort of goals and interests they might have, what rules would people agree to be bound by? I like this idea, because it seems to me that you can accept the method without necessarily accepting Rawls's conclusions. Also, it seems to offer a way to get at an ethical conception that might not be so tightly bound to a particular philosopher's societal circumstances. Kantianism seems so well-suited to the mind-set of an Enlightenment German Protestant non-conformist that one can't help be a bit suspicious of its general applicability.

Though, in all fairness, I have to admit that the rules that Rawls comes up with seem very well suited to the mind-set of a mid-20th century American liberal. He proposes two rules for a just society, which are to be applied in the following order:
1. Everyone should have the maximum liberty that is consistent with everyone having the same liberty.
2. Social and economic advantages should be distributed under conditions of fair equality of opportunity, and inequalities in the distribution of such advantages should be allowed only to the extent that such inequalities benefit the least well-favored in society.

We get to these rules about 100 pages in. The rest of the book is devoted to explaining what they mean and how they would be applied. It's fascinating stuff, but it defies easy summary. One of the most tricky parts of Rawls's theory is the part about inequalities benefitting the least well-favored - in fact, it's not unusual to see critiques of Rawls that focus exclusively on that, and ignore the rest of his argument. Occasionally you see people go on as if Rawls supported some kind of Harrison Bergeron-like state of absolute enforced equality. This seems silly, since it's hard to see how such a society would be consistent with the principle of maximum liberty (which takes priority over the other principle). Rawls potentially allows for staggeringly large degrees of economic or social inequality, as long as it can be demonstrated that these inequalities benefit the least well-off. Actually doing such a demonstration is left to the economists or the sociologists. Which makes a lot of sense. It's just a bit disappointing to read a 500+ page book on justice, and find that there are still lots of hard questions left to be answered.

Still, if forming a perfectly just society were easy, we'd have done it by now.

Anyway, this book is not an easy read, but it's well worth reading. I think that even if you disagree with its conclusions (or, like me, think you at least need more time to think about and digest its conclusions), it will change the way you think about justice.
(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Nov 25, 2010

Anthony D Buckley rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, useful

I’ll start with just a word of complaint. There is no reason at all why an intelligent person like John Rawls should write so badly. One does not expect Mark Twain, George Orwell or even J K Galbraith. However, Rawls could have put in some examples, so that the reader did not sink into a bog of abstract nouns, and it would have been good if he had injected an occasional flash of wit to dissuade the reader from falling off his chair.

This having been said, the book is useful and inter...more

like 2 likes

· see review

May 04, 2009

Peter Namtvedt rated it

Recommends it for: no one

I write this even though Robert Nozick in his "Anarchy, State and Utopia" already provided a decent eulogy for this book. I write this because the antidote to evil needs to be applied repeatedly until the disease is eradicated.

Here is a book that presents in a warm and fuzzy way what Immanuel Kant served up as bitter syrup a few centuries ago, the essential message of altruism flowing from the pens of others from Plato to Augustine to Hitler and theologians through the age...more

like 1 like

· see review

Mar 18, 2011

Dan rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: nonfiction

This is really an outstanding book. I can't really say anything that hasn't already been said by other people (I am sure), so I won't attempt to condense his work into something that will fit here.
His later volume "Justice as Fairness: A Restatement" is supposed to be a more concise statement of the ideas presented in here (and I do intend to read it at some point), so that may be a more approachable place to start for people.
While I had some issues with the details of his la...more

· see review

May 13, 2011

Steven Peterson rated it

What is justice? Plato addressed this question in his epic work "The Republic." John Rawls explores this question more recently. His is acclaimed as a major work on the subject. It has produced considerable debate in philosophical circles. He uses the metaphor af a "veil of ignorance" as his starting point in exploration. An important essay on the subject of justice. . . .

like 1 like

· see review

Nov 19, 2011

Mike Edwards rated it

Shelves: philosophy, political-science, current-events

Perhaps the most controversial theory in political philosophy of the last century. Love it or hate it, Rawls' Veil of Ignorance--and his usage of the device to justify the underpinnings of the modern welfare state--is a brilliant concept. Worth reading for anyone interested in a secular moral justification for modern progressive thought.

· see review

Sep 27, 2011

Tom Walsh rated it

Interesting stuff. Many economic and socialist thinkers will start from the premise of fair "distribution" of wealth, however Rawls points out that the issue isn't "distribution", but rather "re-distribution" since the things of the world are already "distributed". That's a new angle on an old debate.

· see review

Apr 30, 2010

Bhaskar Sunkara rated it

It's Friday night and I just had to read large chunks of this in order to fluff my way through a term paper. I resent this man, though I'll take this bourgeois sycophant over that Locke-bastardizer Mr. Friedman anyday.

· see review

Jul 28, 2011

Jeremy Kossler added it · review of another edition

The core principle of non-entitlement when developing social and political philosophy is terrific. Well written and well thought out. Best contemporary political philosophy book I've read.

· see review

Feb 18, 2009

Kyle Schmitz rated it

terrific rebirth of liberalism in a time when neo-liberal thought was making its mark. i actually read the revised edition 1999, but didnt find it in the search.

· see review

Sep 01, 2011

Adrian rated it

Shelves: economics-finance-business, nonfiction, philosophy, politics-and-foreign-policy, american

A long involved theory of justice - create a society where you would be treated fairly, if you do not know what position you would occupy in such a society.

like 1 like

· see review

Apr 03, 2008

Brad rated it

· review of another edition

This is how political philosophy should be done. It is comprehensive, overtly thoughtful (at times Professor Rawls reads as if he is thinking out loud), and intensely cohesive. Having openly modified his theory of "justice as fairness" through a series of later-written articles and books, in response to his critics, you get a sense of how reasonable this man must have been, and a sense of how powerful the marketplace of ideas can be. However, one has to start somewhere, and this is ...more

· see review

Jan 10, 2009

Robert rated it

The classic. Made Rawls the most important political philosopher of the 20th century. And he's still on top.

· see review

Jan 02, 2009

Ft. Sheridan rated it

It's the foundations of contemporary political philosophy, no matter how frustrating it can be.

· see review

Sep 20, 2007

Matthew rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: ethics

This has got to be a must-read for anyone interested in Social and Political philosophy. Rawls' famous "Veil of Ignorance" method of deciding on a rational social contract is introduced in the first few chapters of the book, and that alone is worth reading. But his development of the concept of justice, and what role it ought to play in a free society, is captivating.

As every critic is quick to point out, the text can be a bit fractured at points (maybe the revised edition ...more

· see review

Jul 27, 2007

Andrew rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Recovering Republicans

This work gets four stars for content, but lost the 5th because Rawls is such a heavy-handed writer. The work lays out the "Veil of Ignorance" in thorough detail, contrasting it with telelogical and intuitionist conceptions of justice (and thoroughly kicking some utilitarian ass, in my opinion). I suppose I found the "contract" theory of justice-as-fairness appealing before reading the book, and was thrilled to finally read the seminal work on the subject, putting the whole...more

· see review

May 19, 2010

Leabelle rated it

An intelligent work, but I'm in the camp that would aim for an egalitarian version of justice.

· see review

Jan 25, 2011

laura rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, dry, beautiful

ok, so i read part one. that counts, right? don't worry-- i'll be reading it all the time for the rest of my career.

· see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 92 93 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (20)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

186 users

Non Fiction

35 users

Politics

34 users

Law

15 users

Politics > Political Science

8 users

Philosophy > Theory

5 users

Literature > American

4 users

Classics

4 users

Literature > 20th Century

3 users

Economics

3 users

See top shelves...

Readers Also Enjoyed

About John Rawls

John Bordley Rawls was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. He held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard. His magnum opus A Theory of Justice (1971) is now regarded as "one of the primary texts in political philosophy." His work in political philosophy, dubbed Rawlsianism, takes as its starting point the argument that "...more

More about John Rawls...

Books by John Rawls

The Law of Peoples: With "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited"

Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Pin It

Trivia About A Theory of Justice

1 trivia question

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from A Theory of Justice

“Thus I assume that to each according to his threat advantage is not a conception of justice.” — 4 people liked it

“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.” — 2 people liked it

More quotes…

Groups That Shelved A Theory of Justice

Philosophy

970 members

last activity Feb 09, 2012 07:29am

shelf: to-read

title link	preview: A Theory of Justice
avg rating	preview: A Theory of Justice Goodreads rating: 3.79 (1346 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/129237.A_Theory_of_Justice?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1171985115m/129237.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/129237.A_Theory_of_Justice?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]A Theory of Justice by John Rawls[/url]

A Theory of Justice

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website