Scan barcode
yelafeld's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
branch_c's review against another edition
Okay, this one of my exceedingly rare DNFs. Having made it to page 140 of 514 in almost four years, it seems unlikely that I’ll spend the time and effort to make it through the rest of the book.
I realize that Rawls is highly regarded, and that this book is considered one of the most significant contributions to moral and political philosophy in the 20th century. I have no doubt that these accolades are well-deserved. But to say that the writing is dense is an understatement. For example:
“Suitably generalized, the allocative conception leads to the classical utilitarian view. For as we have seen, this doctrine assimilates justice to the benevolence of the impartial spectator and the latter in turn to the most efficient design of institutions to promote the greatest balance of satisfaction.” (p. 77)
The thing is, as brilliant as his thinking may have been, in his writing, Rawls could have benefited from the advice of Steven Pinker on the subject of clear English, as conveyed in The Sense of Style (and demonstrated in his other books).
Meanwhile, I recently read Michael Sandel’s Justice, in which the author does a fine job summarizing Rawls’s views (along with Kant’s, and Aristotle’s). As I said in my review of that book, the concepts of the original position and the veil of ignorance were already clear to me. From Sandel I got a decent overview of other concepts, including the difference principle, natural duties, and voluntary obligations. Having grasped those ideas, I don’t feel the need to consume the details in Rawls’s own words.
The hypothetical social contract described here, as an amendment to a basic understanding of utilitarianism, has often appealed to me as a reasonable moral philosophy. It still does, even if Rawls didn’t manage to personally convey it to me. So I can recommend this book for its ideas, if not for its clarity in expressing them.
bloodycontrary's review against another edition
3.0
John Rawls' magnum opus 'A Theory of Justice' (this copy was the 2nd ed.) is such a staple of contemporary political and moral philosophy that it is difficult for an amateur like me to review it. Given the nature of the project Rawls sought to accomplish, it is only good and proper that a dozen years' research into both this and his other (and better, in my opinion) opus, 'Political Liberalism', would produce a decent review of Rawlsian Justice as a whole. However, as somebody who takes many of Rawls' ideas as set out in this book very seriously - without necessarily agreeing with them - I shall do my best.
Let's get this out the way first. Yes, the book is dry. So, so dry. Even the most ardent Rawls fan will accept that his writing style is not particularly suited to a volume of this size. In fact, before tackling this particular work, I would recommend would-be Rawls readers to digest 'A Kantian Concept of Equality', which is a quite excellent article by the great man. Following that, I'd recommend either of the volumes containing Rawls' lectures, where we get to see how a great and novel philosopher views other great and novel philosophers. That's right: I'd recommend going through journals and Rawls' lectures before reading this volume.
In short, then, Rawls' idea is not hugely difficult to grasp. At its base, the idea is a mixture of utilitarianism and Kantianism. Individuals are separate, and are ends in themselves, while the welfare of society as a whole must also be considered. This is not to say these are a priori concerns for Rawls. Unlike many left-leaning liberals of his time, he did not take this as self-evident. Rawlsian justice consists of a thorough and often overly-elaborate discussion on the nature of what is just, what individuals are entitled to, and the demarcation between individual earnings and societal need. The discussion is often needlessly elaborate. Contrast Rawls' description of the difference principle with his discussion on classical utilitarianism. Arguably the latter deserves more time than the former, but nevertheless one can't help but think they might both have been given equal treatment with much less text.
However, deficiencies in style aside, this book is a must-read for anybody with any kind of interest in political or moral philosophy. The reasons are threefold:
1) Rawlsian justice, as a concept, was hugely influential at the time and is still influential today.
2) In historical terms, Rawls' theory gave left-liberals everywhere a much more solid philosophical basis to their egalitarian leanings.
3) Just read it, or nobody will pay attention to you in discussions of contemporary philosophy.
My reasoning for the 3 star rating is that the style is so poor as to make it a real struggle to get through the entire volume. Furthermore, while I find the philosophy to be both fascinating and deeply profound, I do feel 'A Theory of Justice' has had an effect on modern philosophy disproportionate to the value it has. As aforementioned, I consider 'Political Liberalism' to be a much better-written and ultimately more convincing discussion of left-liberalism. 'A Theory of Justice' is probably necessary for understanding contemporary political theory, but is definitely not sufficient.
That aside, you'd be a fool not to at least familiarise yourself with the salient chapters at least. I have completed this book once, but read the early chapters dozens of times. And, honestly, you can probably get away with that.
Let's get this out the way first. Yes, the book is dry. So, so dry. Even the most ardent Rawls fan will accept that his writing style is not particularly suited to a volume of this size. In fact, before tackling this particular work, I would recommend would-be Rawls readers to digest 'A Kantian Concept of Equality', which is a quite excellent article by the great man. Following that, I'd recommend either of the volumes containing Rawls' lectures, where we get to see how a great and novel philosopher views other great and novel philosophers. That's right: I'd recommend going through journals and Rawls' lectures before reading this volume.
In short, then, Rawls' idea is not hugely difficult to grasp. At its base, the idea is a mixture of utilitarianism and Kantianism. Individuals are separate, and are ends in themselves, while the welfare of society as a whole must also be considered. This is not to say these are a priori concerns for Rawls. Unlike many left-leaning liberals of his time, he did not take this as self-evident. Rawlsian justice consists of a thorough and often overly-elaborate discussion on the nature of what is just, what individuals are entitled to, and the demarcation between individual earnings and societal need. The discussion is often needlessly elaborate. Contrast Rawls' description of the difference principle with his discussion on classical utilitarianism. Arguably the latter deserves more time than the former, but nevertheless one can't help but think they might both have been given equal treatment with much less text.
However, deficiencies in style aside, this book is a must-read for anybody with any kind of interest in political or moral philosophy. The reasons are threefold:
1) Rawlsian justice, as a concept, was hugely influential at the time and is still influential today.
2) In historical terms, Rawls' theory gave left-liberals everywhere a much more solid philosophical basis to their egalitarian leanings.
3) Just read it, or nobody will pay attention to you in discussions of contemporary philosophy.
My reasoning for the 3 star rating is that the style is so poor as to make it a real struggle to get through the entire volume. Furthermore, while I find the philosophy to be both fascinating and deeply profound, I do feel 'A Theory of Justice' has had an effect on modern philosophy disproportionate to the value it has. As aforementioned, I consider 'Political Liberalism' to be a much better-written and ultimately more convincing discussion of left-liberalism. 'A Theory of Justice' is probably necessary for understanding contemporary political theory, but is definitely not sufficient.
That aside, you'd be a fool not to at least familiarise yourself with the salient chapters at least. I have completed this book once, but read the early chapters dozens of times. And, honestly, you can probably get away with that.
kevenwang's review against another edition
5.0
I have studied some John Rawls when I was in college. I was a little intimated before starring this book. But highly recommend
generalheff's review against another edition
3.0
An extremely interesting take on the contract tradition, this book suffers from the back two thirds of the book that deal with the conception of the good as the rational and the good of the sense of justice.
Where the first part of the book introduces a great tool for thinking about how to justify institutions or states of society in general (the famous original position and veil of ignorance), the second part seems to invoke too many assumptions and jumps, all to tie the various pieces of Rawls’ theory together in a neat package. It’s a shame the book felt so padded in this way as is a great work aside from this and I suppose it is no wonder that the primary aspects of the book that people comment on are the ones just mentioned rather than the development of our sense of justice and the moral theory more explicitly built up later in the book.
Despite its flaws, a partly worthwhile read that certainly makes you approach problems in a new way - always a plus in a piece of political philosophy.
Where the first part of the book introduces a great tool for thinking about how to justify institutions or states of society in general (the famous original position and veil of ignorance), the second part seems to invoke too many assumptions and jumps, all to tie the various pieces of Rawls’ theory together in a neat package. It’s a shame the book felt so padded in this way as is a great work aside from this and I suppose it is no wonder that the primary aspects of the book that people comment on are the ones just mentioned rather than the development of our sense of justice and the moral theory more explicitly built up later in the book.
Despite its flaws, a partly worthwhile read that certainly makes you approach problems in a new way - always a plus in a piece of political philosophy.
mistypane's review against another edition
2.0
I had to read this book for a course. I'd come across Rawls' ideas before in Open University courses where they were compared to Nozick. I thought I liked Rawls from those readings, but I see from a fuller reading that was because they were compared to ideas which I found more obnoxious.
I am going to have to write an essay on Rawls later and do a presentation in a couple of weeks. At the moment what I am interested in is a seeming incoherence about the idea of individuals. In explaining the 'Original Position' and the 'Veil of Ignorance' Rawls wants to assume that individuals are mutually disinterested and not assume anything about altruism, but then later in the book, especially when considering intergenerational justice he needs to reintroduce altruism/ familial affection in order to explain why people should care about future generations. He writes quite eloquently about 'the idea of social union' (well compared to the some other parts of the book, which I gather is because he dealt with criticisms or suggestions by adding extra bits in to cover those issues rather than rewriting?)but earlier in the book says things like 'Now obviously no one can obtain everything he wants; the mere existence of other persons prevents this.' - which actually made me laugh out loud in a seminar.
Despite the fact I didn't like the general ideas of this book, it's clearly hugely influential and an important read so I'm glad to have spent the time.
I am going to have to write an essay on Rawls later and do a presentation in a couple of weeks. At the moment what I am interested in is a seeming incoherence about the idea of individuals. In explaining the 'Original Position' and the 'Veil of Ignorance' Rawls wants to assume that individuals are mutually disinterested and not assume anything about altruism, but then later in the book, especially when considering intergenerational justice he needs to reintroduce altruism/ familial affection in order to explain why people should care about future generations. He writes quite eloquently about 'the idea of social union' (well compared to the some other parts of the book, which I gather is because he dealt with criticisms or suggestions by adding extra bits in to cover those issues rather than rewriting?)but earlier in the book says things like 'Now obviously no one can obtain everything he wants; the mere existence of other persons prevents this.' - which actually made me laugh out loud in a seminar.
Despite the fact I didn't like the general ideas of this book, it's clearly hugely influential and an important read so I'm glad to have spent the time.