Moral Actors and Political Spectators: On Some Virtues and Vices of Rawls's Liberalism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Justice and the Public Sphere: A Critique of John Rawls’ Political Liberalism
2017
This article criticizes John Rawls’ conception of political liberalism, which insists that political sphere governed by his two principles of justice can be separated from any comprehensive moral doctrines, and that the validity of his conception of justice is political, not metaphysical nor comprehensive. I argue that Rawls’ project is flawed by showing that his two principles of justice and political liberalism are presupposed by the very comprehensive/ metaphysical doctrines which he denies. Whether he realizes it or not Rawls chooses a particular comprehensive theory of the good/person, specifically that of an unencumbered self. I discuss Rawls’ political liberalism from two points of view. First, I discuss Rawls’ political liberalism from political economy points of view, which I argue that the foundation of Rawls’ principles of justice lies in his particular theory of the person. Second, I discuss Rawls’ political liberalism from philosophical points of view, which I argues th...
A Republican Interpretation of the Late Rawls
The Journal of Political Philosophy, 2006
WHAT sort of liberal is Rawls? What sort of liberal is a philosopher who makes the citizen (and not the individual) the subject of his political liberalism; who starts from a normative-political definition of the citizen as a moral person with moral powers; who makes overlapping consensus (and not the balance of interests) his theory’s central regulative ideal; who makes reasonableness (rather than strategic rationality) the principle that is to guide discussion among free and equal citizens; and who has such a patently constitutive-civic conception of primary goods? Add to this that Rawls declares his theory of the good society compatible with the tradition of classical republicanism and thinks it capable of answering Marx’s four major criticisms of liberalism.1 Truly, Rawls is not an easy thinker to situate as a philosopher of liberty: it is difficult to decide whether his theory is best interpreted in terms of the republican tradition or in terms of the liberal tradition; there is a good deal of republicanism in his doctrine, but also a good deal of liberalism. The aim of this article is to help determine which tradition affords the best interpretation of Rawls, above all the later Rawls: the author of Political Liberalism and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. I presuppose throughout the article a certain familiarity with Rawls’ thought on the part of the reader.
John Rawls and the Task of Political Philosophy
The Review of Politics, 2009
In this article, I sketch a reading of Rawls's work that ties together many of the features that distinguish it from the work of other authors commemorated in this issue. On this reading, the two world wars and the Holocaust pressed the question of whether a just liberal democracy is possible. Seeking to defend reasonable faith in that…
The Review of Politics, 2003
The influence of Rawls's work on academic political and moral theorizing, especially on the academic disciplines of political and moral philosophy, would be difficult to overstate. The agenda of contemporary political philosophy, and much of the agenda of moral philosophy, has been set by Rawls's work in at least this sense: even those who disagree with him are bound to respond to him. He is unarguably the greatest political philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century and is arguably the greatest of the whole of it. It would not, however, be impossible to overstate Rawls's importance. Some people have overstated it, saying that political philosophy began in 1971 with the publication of Rawls's magisterial A Theory of Justice. In fact, as those who know the history of this journal need no reminding, political theorizing was not dead in the English-speaking world at the middle of the twentieth century. But the horror of two world wars had chastened the hopes of many constructive political theorists in the west, particularly those on the left. The influence of positivism on Anglophone philosophy had shifted the concerns of moral philosophers to linguistic and metaethical questions. Rawls therefore began his work at a time when political philosophers pursued a modest and a somewhat arid and technical agenda. While the publication of Theory of Justice did not mark the renaissance of a moribund discipline, it did bring a change
Rawls and American Political Traditions
Journal of Social Philosophy
Relative to the American political and jurisprudential tradition, or traditions, Rawls's work is increasingly characterized today as, at best, of mainly if not merely historical interest, or worse, as pernicious. In this essay I endeavor to locate Rawls's work against the American political and jurisprudential tradition, or traditions. After distinguishing his substantive political commitments from those characteristic of early 20th century American progressivism or the so-called mid-century liberal consensus, I briefly discuss the methodological importance to Rawls of Edward Corwin and Alpheus Mason, each a close student of the American political and jurisprudential tradition, or traditions. I then situate Rawls's work in relationship to three influential figures from the American tradition, or traditions: Orestes Brownson, Herbert Croly, and Frank Knight. I conclude with some thoughts about why, contra critics, Rawls's work is still of great practical relevance today.
Stanley Cavell, John Rawls and moral perfectionism in liberal democracy
European Journal of Political Theory, 2024
John Rawls was what we might call a "frenemy" to Stanley Cavell. Time and again, Cavell states his admiration for Rawls's political philosophy but criticizes it for two reasons. First, he believes that Rawls too hastily dismisses a perfectionist tradition that is essential for a flourishing liberal democracy. Second, he attacks certain aspects of Rawls's theory of justice as moralistic and legalistic. The first half of this article examines Cavell's critique of Rawls and argues that the two authors are more closely aligned than suspected. It begins by reconstructing Cavell's critique of Rawls, and using archival materials from Harvard University, presents for the first time Rawls's interpretation of this critique. The second half of the article highlights perfectionist themes in Rawls's A Theory of Justice. The contribution of this article is to reevaluate the relationship between two of the most important moral philosophers of the twentieth century and also to provide a more expansive theory of liberalism that incorporates the psychological depth, moral subtlety and political hopefulness of moral perfectionism.
Gerechtigkeit als Versöhnung. John Rawls' politischer Liberalismus (Campus 2009)
Can members of democratic societies reach agreement about a political conception of justice despite the fact that our religious and secular views are mutually incompatible? What shall we make of this doctrinal pluralism? Do we have reasons to expect our fellow citizens to do their share in bringing about and maintaining a just democracy? These questions are central to John Rawls's political liberalism. The answers citizens give to these questions shape their attitudes to liberal democracy and politics in general. Schaub reconstructs Rawls's ambitious project of reconciliation with liberal democracy, subjects it to comprehensive criticism, and reveals its Hegelian roots.