Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T16:08:34.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Criticisms of A Theory of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Jon Mandle
Affiliation:
State University of New York, Albany
Get access

Summary

Given the absolute centrality of Rawls's work to contemporary political philosophy, it would be impossible to attempt anything like a comprehensive survey of the secondary literature which now contains many thousands of works. Instead we will focus on a few themes that have figured prominently in the critical literature. In the first section we will consider some criticisms of the idea of reflective equilibrium and Rawls's method of justification. This will highlight an important contrast between how Rawls conceives of the project of justice as fairness and a common understanding of the tasks of moral philosophy. The second and third sections will examine the so-called “communitarian” critique of Rawls. There are several distinct views that are often given this label, and we will focus on two of the most important. This will bring out more clearly how Rawls thinks about the virtue of justice and the degree of flexibility and sensitivity to different circumstances that he allows. In the last two sections we will consider two criticisms that focus on economic justice – first the libertarianism of Robert Nozick and then the radical egalitarianism of G. A. Cohen. This will allow us to bring out more clearly how Rawls thinks about distributive justice and the contrast between justice as fairness and luck egalitarianism.

FOUNDATIONALISM AND REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM

In the preface to A Theory of Justice Rawls comments that “I have avoided extensive methodological discussions…Occasionally there are methodological comments and asides, but for the most part I try to work out a substantive theory of justice.”

Type
Chapter
Information
Rawls's 'A Theory of Justice'
An Introduction
, pp. 170 - 200
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gauthier, David, Moral by Agreement (Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 269Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas, Mortal Questions (Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. xGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael, The Moral Problem (Blackwell, 1994), p. 2Google Scholar
(Ethics Done Right: Practical Reasoning as a Foundation for Moral Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 9, his emphasis)
Singer, Peter, “Sidgwick and Reflective Equilibrium,” The Monist, 58 (1974), p. 516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Independence of Moral Theory” [1975] in Freeman, Collected Papers, p. 289
Habermas, Jürgen, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Lenhardt, Christian and Nicholsen, Shierry Weber, trans. (MIT Press, 1990), p. 66Google Scholar
Brandt, Richard, A Theory of the Good and the Right (Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 20Google Scholar
Hare, R. M., “Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism” in Utilitarianism and Beyond, Sen, Amartya and Williams, Bernard, eds. (Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 25Google Scholar
Hare, R. M., “Rawls' Theory of Justice” [1973] in Daniels, Reading Rawls, p. 83Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen, “Life-Forms, Morality and the Task of the Philosopher” [1984] in Autonomy and Solidarity, rev. edn., Dews, Peter, ed. (Verso, 1992), p. 199Google Scholar
Rawls, John, “The Independence of Moral Theory” [1975] in Freeman, Collected Papers, p. 287Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas, “Rawls on Justice” [1973] in Daniels, Reading Rawls, p. 2Google Scholar
Dewey, John, “The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy” [1917] in The Essential Dewey, vol. I, Hickman, Larry and Alexander, Thomas, eds. (Indiana University Press, 1998), p. 68Google Scholar
Dewey, John, “Experience, Knowledge and Value: A Rejoinder” [1939] in The Philosophy of John Dewey, Schilpp, Paul and Hahn, Lewis, eds., 3rd edn. (Open Court, 1989), p. 524Google Scholar
Rawls, John, A Study in the Grounds of Ethical Knowledge (PhD Dissertation, Princeton University, 1950), p. 212, n. 1Google Scholar
“The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy” [1988] in Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers, vol. I (Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 184–5
Mulhall, Stephen and Swift, Adam, Liberals and Communitarians, 2nd edn. (Blackwell, 1996), p. 40Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair, “Modern politics is civil war carried on by other means.” (After Virtue, 2nd edn. (Notre Dame, 1984), p. 253)Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael, Democracy's Discontent (Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 13–14Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael, “The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self,” Political Theory, 12 (1984), p. 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
an authoritarian business.” (“Philosophy and Democracy,” Political Theory, 9 (1981), p. 381)
Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice (Basic Books, 1983), p. 312Google Scholar
Arneson, Richard, “Against ‘Complex Equality’” in Pluralism, Justice, and Equality, Miller, David and Walzer, Michael, eds. (Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 240Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua, “Book Review of Spheres of Justice,” The Journal of Philosophy, 83 (1986), p. 463Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael, “‘Spheres of Justice’: An Exchange,” New York Review of Books, July 21, 1983, p. 44. Compare Spheres of Justice, p. 313Google Scholar
Wolff, Jonathan, Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State (Stanford University Press, 1991), p. 78Google Scholar
Nozick, 's ‘Justice in Transfer’ and the Problem of Market-Based Distribution,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24 (1995), p. 230)Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas, “Libertarianism without Foundations” [1975] in Reading Nozick: Essays on “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” Paul, Jeffrey, ed. (Blackwell, 1981), esp. pp. 200–2Google Scholar
Becker, Lawrence, “Against the Supposed Difference between Historical and End-State Theories,” Philosophical Studies, 41 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government [1690], Laslett, Peter, ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1960), p. 170 [I.42]Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel, The Metaphysics of Morals [1797], Gregor, Mary, trans. (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 101 [Ak.6:326]Google Scholar
Rawls, John, “A Kantian Conception of Equality” [1975] in Freeman, Collected Papers, p. 263, footnote excludedGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A., If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 122Google Scholar
Williams, Andrew, “Incentives, Inequality, and Publicity,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 27 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, Jonathan, “Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 27 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Paul, “Incentives and Justice: G. A. Cohen's Egalitarian Critique of Rawls,” Social Theory and Practice, 24 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, Thomas, “On the Site of Distributive Justice: Reflections on Cohen and Murphy,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel, “Is the Basic Structure Basic?” in The Egalitarian Conscience: Essays in Honour of G. A. Cohen, Sypnowich, Christine, ed. (Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
Baynes, Kenneth, “Ethos and Institutions: On the Site of Distributive Justice,” Journal of Social Philosophy, 37 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua, “Taking People as They Are?Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A., “Incentives, Inequality, and Community,” The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 13, Peterson, Grethe, ed. (University of Utah Press, 1992), pp. 302–3Google Scholar
Estlund, David, “Liberalism, Equality, and Fraternity in Cohen's Critique of Rawls,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A. “Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve Liberty” [1977] in Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 25, 31Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A., “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice,” Ethics, 99 (1989), p. 906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.A., “Expensive Taste Rides Again” in Dworkin and His Critics, Burley, Justine, ed. (Blackwell, 2004), pp. 4, 6–7, 17Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine, “The Reasons We Can Share” [1993] in Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 275Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×