A Theory of Justice Paperback – September 30, 1999

If you want to read modern philosophers, Martha Nussbaum, Timothy Williamson, Owen Flanagan, Daniel Dennett, etc etc., they all seem to employ concepts or frameworks from Theory of Justice in the background. That's my impression anyway. So in other words, the author and the book are brilliant. It's as fascinating a read as you would think.

This is one of the most important books on social philosophy written in the last century. As the other mis-informed reviews illustrate, Rawls requires careful reading and a conviction to work through his arguments. Basically, Rawls tries to argue for a theory of Justice based on non-utilitarian principles. How can we have a Just Society that preserves individual rights and at the same time functions above the level of anarchy? Tilting too far one way results in a Communistic state that places the group above the individual. Tilting too far the other way results in a state that is a "war of all against all".Rawls proposes that we arrive at a conception of Justice using minimal assumptions. He uses something called the "Veil of Ignorance" to derive his principles of Justice. This "Veil of Ignorance" assumes we would act in our own self-interest, but we don't know where in society we would end up. Given these two principles, people actint in their own self-interest but not knowing what place they might occupy in society, Rawls argues that we would come up with two principles of Justice; 1) each person has the most extensive basic liberties that are compatible for everyone having these liberties, and 2) social inequalities will be arranged so that they benefit everyone and such that we all have equal access to beneficial social positions.(Some reviews here apparently feel that Rawls was trying to describe an historical situation with the Veil of Ignorance. I would suggest that they actually read Rawls.)What Rawls is arguing is that taking a very minimal assumption about human nature (we rationally act in our own self interest) and assuming that no one knows his or her eventual social position, we will come up with these two principles of Justice (Justice as Fairness). A society is Just if it provides the most extensive set of liberties possible to everyone in the society and if it contains ways to balance social inequalities and provide equal access. Most people (even the Ann Rand folk) would agree with the first principle (equal rights), but likely have problems with the second.Most of the people writing reviews, I believe, have not really read what Rawls has written or understood what they have read. If you want to disagree with Rawls then you must meet him with argument and reason, and not vituperative comment. I may not agree with everything in this book, but I must first understand Rawls' powerful arguments and reasoning before I can propose alternative ideas. Love him or hate him, Rawls cannot be ignored and neither can this book.

All right, I'll confess--I haven't actually read this whole book. I don't know if anyone, even Rawls, ever has. A Theory of Justice is famously difficult and dense, but nevertheless absolutely essential reading for anyone interested in political philosophy. I'm not going to summarize his arguments here--others have already done that much better than I ever could--but Rawls' vision of a truly just society is so brilliant and innovative you can't help but admire it, even if you think it's a bad idea. This book has influenced generations of political thinkers and policymakers, and serves as a justification for so many of the redistributive economic policies in place today. If you're interested in political philosophy or just want to know why Western states dole out welfare like they do, read this book. Or at least parts of it.

John Rawls was the first to gain fame contending that genetic luck is not the same as merit. This work builds on many thinkers, most notably Vico, but it raises the issue that every Capitalist and Ayn Rand aficionado should have drummed into what grey matter remains: even if we have equal opportunity (which we don't) humans do not have equal capabilities or inclinations. It leads to the inescapable conclusion that the skills with the highest value in Capitalist societies were given that value by the very people with those skills—not by any magical "market." When Elizabeth Warren says the game is rigged, this is certainly a great example. Rawls builds a convincing case that the welfare of societies as a whole cannot improve if the fruits of genetic luck go to the lucky and are not re-distributed back into society to benefit the General Welfare. Selfish financial hoarders find Rawls' argument threatening, and anyone who buys into the American myth of the "self-made man" will vehemently oppose Rawls' expose of the real source of their success. All the more reason to make this required reading for everyone in America.

A must for any serious library particularly those interested in social political philosophy.

Yeah, well, sure if we were to completely redesign everything and forget everything we know about human nature and hide behind a veil of ignorance and make rational laws and be willing to redistribute the wealth for which we competed because our fellow humans, however lazy or inept they be, "deserve" a "fair" distribution of comfortable resources no matter the mess they make of their individual lives, GREAT!But to be more fair: as an idealist vision, Rawls challenges us to reconsider the vast "wealth gap" currently yawning, and maybe we'll see that the ultra-rich really DON'T deserve it and the rest of us ought tax them. It's not as if they're creating high-paying or even upper-middle-class or even comfortable middle-class jobs for the rest of us, contrary to the fairy-tale myth of the "job creators" theory. They just bank most of it and absolve themselves of responsibility for the society that made it possible. Therefore, Rawls is a good corrective tonic.

This is the most important work in anglophone political philosophy in the 20th century. Bringing together welfare economics and the Kantian tradition in ethics, Rawls set the terms of the current debate. Even if you aren’t a Rawlsian, your position is in large part defined by how it relates to his.