Rawls defended the model of a property‐owning democracy; critically reflected on the US constitutional history of free speech; and argued that “both Hiroshima and the fire‐bombing of Japanese cities were great evils.” What ties these and many other disparate concerns together is the idea of the original position. “Justice as Fairness,” published in 1958, included several crucial developments. Rawls proposes his “two principles of justice,” which, through various revisions, he would defend for the rest of his career: a principle of (...) equal liberty and a principle encompassing fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. Rawls argues that parties would accept his two principles in two stages: first, by a comparison with average utilitarianism, which focuses on his first principle, and then by a comparison with so‐called “mixed conceptions,” which focuses on the second principle. Rawls continues to claim that the original position establishes a form of objectivity. (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)

A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, is widely regarded as the most important twentieth-century work of Anglo-American political philosophy. It transformed the field by offering a compelling alternative to the dominant utilitarian conception of social justice. The argument for this alternative is, however, complicated and often confusing. In this book Jon Mandle carefully reconstructs Rawls's argument, showing that the most common interpretations of it are often mistaken. For example, Rawls does not endorse welfare-state capitalism, and he is not (...) a "luck egalitarian" as is widely believed.Mandle also explores the relationship between A Theory of Justice and the developments in Rawls's later work, Political Liberalism, as well as discussing some of the most influential criticisms in the secondary literature. His book will be an invaluable guide for anyone seeking to engage with this ground-breaking philosophical work"--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

John Rawls is widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and his work has permanently shaped the nature and terms of moral and political philosophy, deploying a robust and specialized vocabulary that reaches beyond philosophy to political science, economics, sociology, and law. This volume is a complete and accessible guide to Rawls' vocabulary, with over 200 alphabetical encyclopaedic entries written by the world's leading Rawls scholars. From 'basic structure' to 'burdened society', from 'Sidgwick' to (...) 'strains of commitment', and from 'Nash point' to 'natural duties', the volume covers the entirety of Rawls' central ideas and terminology, with illuminating detail and careful cross-referencing. It will be an essential resource for students and scholars of Rawls, as well as for other readers in political philosophy, ethics, political science, sociology, international relations and law. (shrink)

A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, is widely regarded as the most important twentieth-century work of Anglo-American political philosophy. It transformed the field by offering a compelling alternative to the dominant utilitarian conception of social justice. The argument for this alternative is, however, complicated and often confusing. In this book Jon Mandle carefully reconstructs Rawls's argument, showing that the most common interpretations of it are often mistaken. For example, Rawls does not endorse welfare-state capitalism, and he is not (...) a 'luck egalitarian' as is widely believed. Mandle also explores the relationship between A Theory of Justice and the developments in Rawls's later work, Political Liberalism, as well as discussing some of the most influential criticisms in the secondary literature. His book will be an invaluable guide for anyone seeking to engage with this ground-breaking philosophical work. (shrink)

The publication of Political Liberalismhas allowed John Rawls to bring to the fore issues that remained in the background of A Theory of Justice. His explicit attention to the concept of ‘the reasonable’ is a welcome development. In a more recent publication, he affirms the importance of this concept, ‘while [granting] that the idea of the reasonable needs a more thorough examination than Political Liberalism offers.’ In this paper, I will present a critical exposition of the senses of the reasonable (...) on which justice as fairness relies. Rawls employs the term in four main contexts. I will outline these various senses and argue that in each case, a controversy in the secondary literature can be resolved by close attention to the concept of the reasonable. In three of these contexts, Rawls relies on what I will call a ‘strong’ sense of the reasonable, while in one he sometimes seems to rely on a ‘weak’ sense. I argue that justice as fairness is best served by relying on a strong sense throughout. (shrink)

The left's reluctance to embrace political liberalism is based, in part, on the persistent misunderstandings of justice as fairness. In What's Left of Liberalism? Jon Mandle provides a systematic overview of the theory, discussing its basic structure and describing the models of society and the person, as well as the idea of public reason, that it supports. Mandle also considers the challenges posed to political liberalism by communitarianism and postmodernism, offering critiques of theorists such as Edmund Burke, Michael (...) Oakeshott, and Roger Scruton; and Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, and Michel Foucault. Scholars will find Mandle's arguments thought-provoking, while students will find his clarification of Rawls a useful supplement to the original texts. (shrink)

Although maxims are central to Kant’s ethical theory, his account of them remains obscure. We can make progress towards understanding Kantian maxims by examining not only their role as the object of moral judgement but also their connection to freedom of the will and causality. This requires understanding maxims as causal laws that explain the actions that we impute to agents. In this way, they are analogous to causal laws of nature, but they are limited in scope to the agents (...) who are responsible for them. Understanding maxims in this way explains our limited epistemic access to them and helps to clarify Kant’s account of virtue and character as well as how they mediate the relationship between practical and theoretical reason. (shrink)

In this new book, Jon Mandle explores the meaning of global justice and provides students with an accessible introduction to the core concepts and debates in the field. Global justice, he explains, requires universal respect for basic human rights. These rights belong to each and every one of us, and they can be used to guide policy-making in areas such as humanitarian intervention, global poverty, and secession. Emphasizing the importance of legitimate political institutions for protecting basic rights and ensuring (...) self-determination, Mandle sets out concrete reforms which would protect core human rights internationally."--Jacket. (shrink)

Rousseauian Constructivism JON MANDLE ROUSSEAU'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY focusses on the idea of the general will. Unfortunately, it often seems as though this central idea raises more questions than it answers. This paper will develop an interpretation of Rousseau's politi- cal philosophy that starts from an understanding of the general will. I do not claim that this reading solves all of the paradoxical and difficult aspects of Rousseau's moral and political thought. For example, I do not discuss his ac- count (...) of freedom or his theory of moral education. However, I believe that it is necessary to understand Rousseau's notion of the general will properly before addressing these other topics. As Judith Shklar writes: "The general will is Rousseau's most successful metaphor. It conveys everything he most wanted to say."' Patrick Riley has demonstrated that the notion of a general will has its origins in theological disputes. But, as Riley also notes, there are a number of possible approaches to Rousseau, "each one laden with real fruit. One can approach Rousseau as the high point of the social contract tradition. ''~ In this paper, I present an account of the general will which at- tempts to identify more clearly Rousseau's position in this social contract tradi- tion, especially through a contrast with Hobbes. As I demonstrate in the con- cluding section, a proper understanding of the general will reveals important connections to.. (shrink)

(1997). Current Societal Concerns About Justice (Book) Ethics & Behavior: Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 367-376.

This chapter contains sections titled: Notes.

In 1981, Ronald Dworkin published a two-part article entitled “What Is Equality?”. In it, he considers what egalitarians should aim to equalize. Dworkin argues in favor of equality of resources rather than equality of welfare, and in particular, he maintains that a proper egalitarian theory of distributive justice should be “ambition-sensitive” but not “endowment-sensitive.” That is, it will allow inequalities that reflect the fact that some people “choose to invest rather than consume, or to consume less expensively rather than more, (...) or to work in more rather than less profitable ways,” but it will not allow the distribution of resources to be affected by “differences in ability of the sort that produce income differences in a laissez-faire economy among people with the same ambitions”. (shrink)

Kai Nielsen's work truly is a model for what engaged philosophical argument can and should aspire to be. He is militantly committed to clarity and to the rejection of dogma. His palpable good faith and sincerity are evident in everything he writes. I can't pretend to have read more than a fraction of Nielsen's voluminous writings, but one of my favorite passages of his is from a recent essay and is reprinted in Globalization and Justice:.

The work of John Rawls is central to contemporary political philosophy. A Theory of Justice provides a model for the justification of substantive principles of justice, and it defends principles that reject utilitarianism. Ultimately, justification is a matter of what the participants in a relationship or an institution can justify to one another. Unlike utilitarianism, which assumes that there is one good that it is the job of morality to maximize, Rawls holds that there are multiple conceptions of the good (...) associated with different individuals. Furthermore, he holds that there are multiple principles of morality associated with different relationships and institutions. His principles of justice are designed for one of these—the basic structure of society. They establish a moral minimum that all members of a society owe to one another, but additional principles are required to govern other special relationships. (shrink)

In 1981, Ronald Dworkin published a two-part article entitled “What Is Equality?”. In it, he considers what egalitarians should aim to equalize. Dworkin argues in favor of equality of resources rather than equality of welfare, and in particular, he maintains that a proper egalitarian theory of distributive justice should be “ambition-sensitive” but not “endowment-sensitive.” That is, it will allow inequalities that reflect the fact that some people “choose to invest rather than consume, or to consume less expensively rather than more, (...) or to work in more rather than less profitable ways,” but it will not allow the distribution of resources to be affected by “differences in ability of the sort that produce income differences in a laissez-faire economy among people with the same ambitions”. (shrink)

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of studies of international justice. This book is a valuable contribution to that trend. Tan presents his theory as a rival to Rawls’s “law of peoples”. He argues that his critique of Rawls’s work on international justice points to deep flaws in Rawls’s general account of justice and not merely to a mistaken application in a particular area. Specifically, Tan claims that the core fault of the law of peoples is its neglect (...) of individual liberty and that this neglect “stems ultimately from political liberalism’s mistaken stress on toleration as the fundamental liberal principle”. Tan argues that comprehensive liberalism is superior to political liberalism because it takes “individual autonomy to be fundamental”. (shrink)

Some philosophers think that there is a gap between is and ought which necessarily makes normative enquiry a different kind of thing than empirical science. This position gains support from our ability to explicate our inferential practices in a way that makes it impermissible to move from descriptive premises to a normative conclusion. But we can also explicate them in a way that allows such moves. So there is no categorical answer as to whether there is or is not a (...) gap. The question of an is-ought gap is a practical and strategic matter rather than a logical one, and it may properly be answered in different ways for different questions or at different times. (shrink)

This book is a creative, original argument about the variety of forms of expression across the history of philosophy.