A Theory of Justice (Paperback)

by John Rawls (Author)
Key Phrases: distributive shares, cardinal utility, democratic equality, New York, The Clarendon Press, Aristotelian Principle (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Review
In his magisterial new work...John Rawls draws on the most subtle techniques of contemporary analytic philosophy to provide the social contract tradition with what is, from a philosophical point of view at least, the most formidable defense it has yet received...[and] makes available the powerful intellectual resources and the comprehensive approach that have so far eluded antiutilitarians. He also makes clear how wrong it was to claim, as so many were claiming only a few years back, that systematic moral and political philosophy are dead...Whatever else may be true it is surely true that we must develop a sterner and more fastidious sense of justice. In making his peerless contribution to political theory, John Rawls has made a unique contribution to this urgent task. No higher achievement is open to a scholar.
--Marshall Cohen (New York Times Book Review )

Rawls's Theory of Justice is widely and justly regarded as this century's most important work of political philosophy. Originally published in 1971, it quickly became the subject of extensive commentary and criticism, which led Rawls to revise some of the arguments he had originally put forward in this work...This edition will certainly become the definitive one; all scholars will use it, and it will be an essential text for any academic library. It contains a new preface that helpfully outlines the major revisions, and a 'conversion table' that correlates the pagination of this edition with the original, which will be useful to students and scholars working with this edition and the extensive secondary literature on Rawls's work. Highly recommended.
--J. D. Moon (Choice )

[Rawls] has elucidated a conception of justice which goes beyond anything to be found in Kant or Rousseau. It is a convincing refutation, if one is needed, of any lingering suspicions that the tradition of English-speaking political philosophy might be dead. Indeed, his book might plausibly be claimed to be the most notable contribution to that tradition to have been published since Sidgwick and Mill. (Times Literary Supplement )

Enlightenment comes in various forms, sometimes even by means of books. And it is a pleasure to recommend...an indigenous American philosophical masterpiece of the first order...I mean...to press my recommendation of [this book] to non-philosophers, especially those holding positions of responsibility in law and government. For the topic with which it deals is central to this country's purposes, and the misunderstanding of that topic is central to its difficulties...And the central idea is simple, elegant, plausible, and easily applied by anybody at any time as a measure of the justice of his own actions.
--Peter Caws (New Republic )

With the simple carpentry of its arguments, its egalitarian leanings, and its preoccupation with fairness, Rawls's classic 1971 work, A Theory of Justice, is as American a book as, say, Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
--Will Blythe (Civilization )

Product Description

Since it appeared in 1971, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice has become a classic. The author has now revised the original edition to clear up a number of difficulties he and others have found in the original book.

Rawls aims to express an essential part of the common core of the democratic tradition--justice as fairness--and to provide an alternative to utilitarianism, which had dominated the Anglo-Saxon tradition of political thought since the nineteenth century. Rawls substitutes the ideal of the social contract as a more satisfactory account of the basic rights and liberties of citizens as free and equal persons. "Each person," writes Rawls, "possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override." Advancing the ideas of Rousseau, Kant, Emerson, and Lincoln, Rawls's theory is as powerful today as it was when first published.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 560 pages
• Publisher: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; Revised Edition edition (September 30, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0674000781
• ISBN-13: 978-0674000780
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.1 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (52 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #28,528 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #32 in	Books > Reference > Law
  #32 in	Books > Professional & Technical > Law > Law Practice > Reference
  #54 in	Books > Nonfiction > Law > Law Practice

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

54 of 55 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Why so many misconceptions?, February 27, 2006

By	Vincent Poirier "CISSP, http://vfp15.wordpres... (Tokyo, Japan) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

I'm astonished at the tenor and number of negative reviews "A Theory of Justice" has garnered from the right. This is especially surprising because Rawls shares with American conservatives one fundamental principle: the inviolability of the individual.

A "Theory of Justice" is a technical work aimed at professional philosophers, political scientists, and constitutional law specialists. Nevertheless, the book is understandable by laymen, provided it is read as what it is, i.e. a technical work of moral philosophy and not as a political agenda. Rawls's simple and plain style also makes this book a relatively easy read.

I suspect that the rejection of Rawls by even the more thoughtful conservatives stems from a serious misunderstanding of utilitarianism, which Rawls savagely attacks from the start. Utilitarianism is the moral principle that the TOTAL welfare of a society is the highest value. In practice, the only measure of total welfare the government has is GDP, so that's what we maximize: GDP. This makes utilitarianism attractive to laissez-faire capitalist philosophies, and because Rawls attacks utilitarianism, both the left and the right imagine he is attacking markets, industry, and capitalism. The left have made him their angel, and so the right their demon.

Rawls makes no attack on capitalism, only on utilitarianism. He asserts the inviolability of the individual as society's primary moral principle and demonstrates that this is incompatible with utilitarianism. For example, under utilitarianism, it makes sense to take Bob's heart, give it to Stan, and to give his lungs to John. You've saved two lives by sacrificing one, so society is on the whole better off with two members (Stan and John) rather than just one (Bob). This is obviously wrong and that's why we want to jettison this (im)moral philosophy.

Another misconception is that Rawls does not accept inequality. This is false: Rawls accepts inequality provided that those at the bottom benefit from the inequality. For instance let's say John wants to become rich and so invents a pill that for ten dollars/person eliminates the risk of cancer in his hometown. John sells the pill and becomes rich and everyone is cured from cancer. John is better off than anyone else, but everyone else is better off than they would have been under an egalitarian society.

Yet another misconception is that Rawls wants to establish a Utopian plan for a perfect society. He does not. Rawls is not a revolutionary trying to reinvent society; he is a theoritical moral philosopher, a professional academic researcher, who seeks to isolate the basic principles that define what we mean by "Justice". This is a fair goal and a valid program of study. Everyone wants a just society; after all does anyone campaign for an unjust or unfair society? But we disagree as to what we mean by "Justice".

The real object of Rawls's work is to replace utilitarianism with a better concept of the social good, or of Justice. A Theory of Justice is his attempt at this.

Vincent Poirier, Tokyo

135 of 151 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Justice as Fairness, February 18, 2002

By	D. Craig (California) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This is one of the most important books on social philosophy written in the last century. As the other mis-informed reviews illustrate, Rawls requires careful reading and a conviction to work through his arguments. Basically, Rawls tries to argue for a theory of Justice based on non-utilitarian principles. How can we have a Just Society that preserves individual rights and at the same time functions above the level of anarchy? Tilting too far one way results in a Communistic state that places the group above the individual. Tilting too far the other way results in a state that is a "war of all against all".

Rawls proposes that we arrive at a conception of Justice using minimal assumptions. He uses something called the "Veil of Ignorance" to derive his principles of Justice. This "Veil of Ignorance" assumes we would act in our own self-interest, but we don't know where in society we would end up. Given these two principles, people actint in their own self-interest but not knowing what place they might occupy in society, Rawls argues that we would come up with two principles of Justice; 1) each person has the most extensive basic liberties that are compatible for everyone having these liberties, and 2) social inequalities will be arranged so that they benefit everyone and such that we all have equal access to beneficial social positions.

(Some reviews here apparently feel that Rawls was trying to describe an historical situation with the Veil of Ignorance. I would suggest that they actually read Rawls.)

What Rawls is arguing is that taking a very minimal assumption about human nature (we rationally act in our own self interest) and assuming that no one knows his or her eventual social position, we will come up with these two principles of Justice (Justice as Fairness). A society is Just if it provides the most extensive set of liberties possible to everyone in the society and if it contains ways to balance social inequalities and provide equal access. Most people (even the Ann Rand folk) would agree with the first principle (equal rights), but likely have problems with the second.

Most of the people writing reviews, I believe, have not really read what Rawls has written or understood what they have read. If you want to disagree with Rawls then you must meet him with argument and reason, and not vituperative comment. I may not agree with everything in this book, but I must first understand Rawls' powerful arguments and reasoning before I can propose alternative ideas. Love him or hate him, Rawls cannot be ignored and neither can this book.

41 of 48 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The starting point for contemporary political philosophy, July 30, 2001

By	Julian Sanchez (Washington, DC) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

It seems as though an enormous number of the reviews here are from amateur philosophers who rate the book according to how closely they agree with its conclusions, and if the level of agreement is low, go on to give an argument (usually involving a shallow misreading of Rawls) instead of a review. I suggest not taking these into account too heavily. FWIW, I'm among those who thinks Nozick's response to Rawls is brutally on target -- but ToJ is nevertheless a subtle and important piece of political philosophy. If anything, the book is valuable precisely because in seeing why it goes wrong (which is hardly as simple as some of the other reviews make it sound) we get a clearer notion of what features an adequate account of justice would need to have.

Rather than accepting some glib dismissal, I suggest picking up the book and grappling with the arguments yourself. Rawls is not exactly exciting to read (as opposed to, say, Nozick) but this is in part because he is admirably rigorous and methodical, taking pains to distinguish opposed views (he considers several different versions of Utilitarianism, for example, rather than treating it as a monolithic theory) and outline precisely how and why they differ from his own. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, ToJ is absolutely a prerequisite for almost any serious engagement with contemporary political philosophy, which takes place very much in the shadow of Rawls.