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.

Previous edition, 1st, published in 1971.

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 book continues and revises the ideas of justice as fairness that John Rawls presented in _A Theory of Justice_ but changes its philosophical interpretation in a fundamental way. That previous work assumed what Rawls calls a "well-ordered society," one that is stable and relatively homogenous in its basic moral beliefs and in which there is broad agreement about what constitutes the good life. Yet in modern democratic society a plurality of incompatible and irreconcilable doctrines--religious, philosophical, and moral--coexist within the (...) framework of democratic institutions. Recognizing this as a permanent condition of democracy, Rawls asks how a stable and just society of free and equal citizens can live in concord when divided by reasonable but incompatible doctrines? This edition includes the essay "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited," which outlines Rawls ' plans to revise _Political Liberalism,_ which were cut short by his death. "An extraordinary well-reasoned commentary on _A Theory of Justice_...a decisive turn towards political philosophy." --_Times Literary Supplement_. (shrink)

This book originated as lectures for a course on political philosophy that Rawls taught regularly at Harvard in the 1980s.

Consisting of two essays, this work by a Harvard professor offers his thoughts on the idea of a social contract regulating people's behavior toward one another.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@ jstor.org.

Some of these essays articulate views of justice and liberalism distinct from those found in the two books.

This book continues and revises the ideas of justice as fairness that John Rawls presented in _A Theory of Justice_ but changes its philosophical interpretation in a fundamental way. That previous work assumed what Rawls calls a "well-ordered society," one that is stable and relatively homogenous in its basic moral beliefs and in which there is broad agreement about what constitutes the good life. Yet in modern democratic society a plurality of incompatible and irreconcilable doctrines -- religious, philosophical, and moral (...) -- coexist within the framework of democratic institutions. Recognizing this as a permanent condition of democracy, Rawls asks how a stable and just society of free and equal citizens can live in concord when divided by reasonable but incompatible doctrines? This edition includes the essay "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited," which outlines Rawls' plans to revise _Political Liberalism,_ which were cut short by his death. "An extraordinary well-reasoned commentary on _A Theory of Justice_...a decisive turn towards political philosophy." -- _Times Literary Supplement_. (shrink)

This book brings together the lectures that inspired a generation of students--and a regeneration of moral philosophy.

A general prospectus -- Vindication of the natural cosmos -- The extended natural cosmos -- The meaning of sin -- The meaning of faith.

Editors provide a substantive introduction to the history and theories of perfectionism and neutrality, expertly contextualizing the essays and making the collection accessible.

On this occasion I wish to elaborate further the conception of distributive justice that I have already sketched elsewhere. This conception derives from the ideal of social justice implicit in the two principles proposed in the essay “Justice as Fairness.” These discussions need to be supplemented in at least two ways. For one thing, the two parts of the second principle are ambiguous: in each part a crucial phrase admits of two interpretations. The two principles read as follows: first, each (...) person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others; and second, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices equally open to all. The two ambiguous phrases in the second principle are “everyone's advantage” in part (a) and “equally open to all” in part (b). I shall consider these ambiguities and the several interpretations of the two principles to which they give rise. I shall leave aside any difficulties with the first principle and assume that its sense is the same throughout and clear enough for our purposes. (shrink)

El objeto de este ensayo es la extensión al ámbito de las relaciones internacionales de la teoría de la justicia como equidad formulada por el autor en sus anteriores escritos. Así, el Derecho de Genteses concebido como una familia de conceptos políticos ligada a principios de derecho, justicia y bien común, todo lo cual especifica el contenido de una concepción liberal de la justicia formulada para abarcar y ser aplicada al derecho internacional. Los derechos humanos constituyen un elemento central de (...) esta construcción en la medida en que establecen los límites morales al pluralismo entre los pueblos. (shrink)

"Nun ist "Das Recht der Volker" [...] in einer ambitionierten neuen Reihe beim Berliner Verlag de Gruyter erschienen. [...], dass aus "Das Recht der Volker" - wie immer bei Rawls - viel gelernt werden kann [...]."Neue Zurcher Zeitung "Gegen Ende seines Lebens gab John Rawls Antwort auf die Frage, wann ein Krieg gefuhrt werden darf".Suddeutsche Zeitung ""Das Recht der Volker" ist das am meisten beschaftigende und zuganglichste Buch von Rawls."Times Literary Supplement "Es ist sein personlichstes Buch geworden - eines, das (...) den politischen Menschen John Rawls zeigt, der in diesem Buch auch die Erfahrungen seines Jahrhunderts zu verarbeiten sucht."Frankfurter Rundschau "Die Originalausgabe "The Law of Peoples", veroffentlicht 1999, wurde von der Kritik als das "zuganglichste Buch von Rawls" gewurdigt; nun ist die fachkundige deutsche ubersetzung des Philosophen Wilfried Hinsch in einem Land erschienen, das nicht Krieg fuhren will. NIcht diesen gegen den Irak."Die Zeit. (shrink)

The major moral issues of our time have been made vital and immediate by the convergence of numerous factors. Among these are a technology that has produced the threat of nuclear holocaust, that can maintain life beyond the death of the brain, that can destroy the natural world, and that produces deadly, indestructible waste. There is a new sensitivity to the injustices suffered by minorities. Impoverishment and starvation are now the fate of millions. Political tyranny is a continuing threat. Finally, (...) the rise of a new religiousness has had an impact on morals and public affairs. In these provocative essays chosen from The Tanner Lectures on Human Values and first published in 1987, four internationally distinguished scholars explore the moral implications of these issues in today's world. (shrink)

Este artículo, la introducción a la segunda edición de El liberalismo político, edita en castellano, establece una comparación entre el libro y la Teoría cíe la Justicia, explica las diferencias entre ambos libros y detalla los principales temas y objetivos que perseguía Rawls con la escritura de El liberalismo político.

The question 'Why should I obey the law?' introduces a contemporary puzzle that is as old as philosophy itself. The puzzle is especially troublesome if we think of cases in which breaking the law is not otherwise wrongful, and in which the chances of getting caught are negligible. Philosophers from Socrates to H.L.A. Hart have struggled to give reasoned support to the idea that we do have a general moral duty to obey the law but, more recently, the greater number (...) of learned voices has expressed doubt that there is any such duty, at least as traditionally conceived. (shrink)