Scan barcode
orlion's review against another edition
4.0
This is a collection of two essays, one about the framework of how societies in the international community could interact with each other, and the other on Public Reason, which we could also call public political discourse/debate.
Rawls draws a lot from his previous work and assumes that the reader will have some idea about concepts such as "justice as fairness", political liberalism, Veil of Ignorance, and more! I've had some exposure to Rawls from a college course many ages ago, and though I could have done better I felt at least with my minimal knowledge I was able to follow most of Rawls' discussion.
Rawls is not too concerned with coming up with specifics or set up the One True, Reasonable, and Right way to do things. He is instead concerned with how societies (or Peoples, as he refers to them) with different ideas of the One True, Reasonable, and Right Way to Do Things ought to interact with each other, and what concerns they should have when setting up International law. This includes what type of societies would be able to interact peacefully in a global community, what should be done with States that do not follow the Law of Peoples as set forth by this global community, and also the global community's obligations towards burdened societies.
Ultimately, I found this book instructive, in particular since it provides me with a framework through which to view the Spanish Civil War and the failure of the Second Spanish Republic. Though I doubt this is what Rawls had in mind, it is how I'm going to apply many of the ideas I encountered in this book.
Rawls draws a lot from his previous work and assumes that the reader will have some idea about concepts such as "justice as fairness", political liberalism, Veil of Ignorance, and more! I've had some exposure to Rawls from a college course many ages ago, and though I could have done better I felt at least with my minimal knowledge I was able to follow most of Rawls' discussion.
Rawls is not too concerned with coming up with specifics or set up the One True, Reasonable, and Right way to do things. He is instead concerned with how societies (or Peoples, as he refers to them) with different ideas of the One True, Reasonable, and Right Way to Do Things ought to interact with each other, and what concerns they should have when setting up International law. This includes what type of societies would be able to interact peacefully in a global community, what should be done with States that do not follow the Law of Peoples as set forth by this global community, and also the global community's obligations towards burdened societies.
Ultimately, I found this book instructive, in particular since it provides me with a framework through which to view the Spanish Civil War and the failure of the Second Spanish Republic. Though I doubt this is what Rawls had in mind, it is how I'm going to apply many of the ideas I encountered in this book.
jakeyjake's review against another edition
I really, really like John Rawls's popularization of the 'Original position' thought experiment (supposedly credit should also go to Harsanyi and Vickrey too, so... there you go) and the solidarity-natured society that it gets us thinking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
In hindsight, I should've read Theory of Justice (or a detailed summary) before reading this book. It's not necessary, and this won't be the only Rawls book I read in my life, but it might have been better to come at it with that added context.
This book is basically a short treatise on how 'liberal-democratic peoples' might engage inside of their own societies in a way that allows for pluralism of thought, religion, etc. AND also how these groups ('peoples' as distinct from just calling them 'nations') might best interact with/tolerate other liberal-democratic peoples, non-democratic peoples, and 'outlaw states'. BOTH of those topics are extremely relevant today, twenty-something years after this book was published.
There's a lot here to recommend in terms of philosophical thought and it's not an intimidatingly-sized book, but there were some elements to the presentation and style that were less than smooth. It's quite academic (we get both big academic words as well as sections with decimal points...'Section 3.4'). There's also a grating amount of the use of the words 'reasonable' and 'decent'. To be fair, Rawls defines what he means by these words at the beginning, but their repetition almost made it feel as if the two words were growing increasingly ambiguous and qualitative with each iteration.
I may have been just as well off spending time on the Stanford Philosophy site summary, but after having consumed much of Rawls second-hand in others's books and lectures, I was glad to read him in his own words for the first time.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#LawPeoLibForPol
In hindsight, I should've read Theory of Justice (or a detailed summary) before reading this book. It's not necessary, and this won't be the only Rawls book I read in my life, but it might have been better to come at it with that added context.
This book is basically a short treatise on how 'liberal-democratic peoples' might engage inside of their own societies in a way that allows for pluralism of thought, religion, etc. AND also how these groups ('peoples' as distinct from just calling them 'nations') might best interact with/tolerate other liberal-democratic peoples, non-democratic peoples, and 'outlaw states'. BOTH of those topics are extremely relevant today, twenty-something years after this book was published.
There's a lot here to recommend in terms of philosophical thought and it's not an intimidatingly-sized book, but there were some elements to the presentation and style that were less than smooth. It's quite academic (we get both big academic words as well as sections with decimal points...'Section 3.4'). There's also a grating amount of the use of the words 'reasonable' and 'decent'. To be fair, Rawls defines what he means by these words at the beginning, but their repetition almost made it feel as if the two words were growing increasingly ambiguous and qualitative with each iteration.
I may have been just as well off spending time on the Stanford Philosophy site summary, but after having consumed much of Rawls second-hand in others's books and lectures, I was glad to read him in his own words for the first time.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#LawPeoLibForPol
More...