This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Subcategories:
118 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 118
Material to categorize
  1. Paul Anand, Prastanta Pattanaik & Clemens Puppe (eds.) (2009). The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press, USA.
    The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice provides an overview of issues arising in work on the foundations of decision theory and social choice over the past ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Catherine Audard (ed.) (2004). Rawls: Politique Et Métaphysique. Presses Universitaire de France.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Catherine Audard (2002). Rawls in France. European Journal of Political Theory 1 (2):215-227.
    The reception of Rawls in France has been an extremely complex story where forces of innovation have been, in the end, overwhelmed by the resistance of `philosophical nationalism'. This is surprising as, in many ways, France was going through tremendous changes and modernization at the time of the translation of A Theory of Justice in 1987. In that context, Rawls's project seemed to have something useful and suggestive to offer: bridging the gap between freedom and equality in a new version (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Stephen W. Ball (1987). Choosing Between Choice Models of Ethics: Rawlsian Equality, Utilitarianism, and the Concept of Persons. Theory and Decision 22 (3):209-224.
  5. Simon Birnbaum (2010). Radical Liberalism, Rawls and the Welfare State: Justifying the Politics of Basic Income. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 13 (4):495-516.
  6. Douglas H. Blair (1988). The Primary-Goods Indexation Problem in Rawls's Theory of Justice. Theory and Decision 24 (3):239-252.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Matthew Clayton (2001). Rawls and Natural Aristocracy. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 1 (3):239-259.
    The author discusses Rawls’s conception of socioeconomic justice, Democratic Equality. He contrasts Rawls’s account, which includes the difference principle constrained by the principle of fair equality of opportunity, with Natural Aristocracy, which constrains the difference principle only by the principle of careers open to talents. According to the author, many of Rawls’s own arguments support NaturalAristocracy over Democratic Equality. In particular, Natural Aristocracy appears well placed to avoid a challenge that naturally arises in consideration of Democratic Equality, with respect to (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Partha Dasgupta (1974). On Some Problems Arising From Professor Rawls' Conception of Distributive Justice. Theory and Decision 4 (3-4):325-344.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Giovanni De Grandis (2007). Moral Agents and Political Spectators. On Some Virtues and Vices of Rawls’s Liberalism. Politics and Ethics Review 2 (3):217-235.
  10. Giovanni De Grandis (2003). La Giustizia E Il Bene. Teoria Politica (2-3):341-369.
    In this article an attempt is made of presenting the deontological feature of A Theory of Justice under a new light. Through an exploration of the meaning of the priority of the good over the right and of the significance and function of the argument of the congruence between justice and individual good, the differences between teleology and deontology are displayed. Deontology seems to have several advantages: a) it allows for pluralism of values and a richer and deeper understanding of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Giovanni De Grandis (2002). Un maquillage molto leggero. Considerazioni sulla riformulazione della giustizia come equita’ di John Rawls. [REVIEW] Etica E Politica 4 (1).
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Arthur DiQuattro (1986). Rawls Versus Hayek. Political Theory 14 (2):307-310.
  13. Arthur DiQuattro (1983). Rawls and Left Criticism. Political Theory 11 (1):53-78.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. David Estlund (1996). The Survival of Egalitarian Justice in John Rawls's Political Liberalism. Journal of Political Philosophy 4 (1):68–78.
  15. Dani Filc (2007). The Liberal Grounding of the Right to Health Care: An Egalitarian Critique. Theoria 54 (112):51-72.
    The language of rights is increasingly used to regulate access to health care and allocation of resources in the health care field. The right to health has been grounded on different theories of justice. Scholars within the liberal tradition have grounded the right to health care on Rawls's two principles of justice. Thus, the right to health care has been justified as being one of the basic liberties, as enabling equality of opportunity, or as being justified by the maximin principle. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Samuel Fleischacker (2011). The Virtues of Eclecticism. Process Studies 40 (2):232-252.
    Rawls and others have held that political agents in a liberal democracy should argue for their positions without adverting to religious grounds. I suggest here that this is because moral claims in general should not be grounded in religious views. Morality, I argue, consists in norms and ideals that can be defendedfrom many different comprehensive views of the good life, not from any single one (whether that single view be religious or not). It follows that politics, even insofaras it is (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. R. K. Fullinwider (1977). A Chronological Bibliography of Works On John Rawls' Theory of Justice. Political Theory 5 (4):561-570.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Rodilla González & A. M. (2006). Leyendo a Rawls. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Paul Graham (2008). John Rawls. Contemporary Political Theory 7 (4):449.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Joseph Heath (2008). Political Egalitarianism. Social Theory and Practice 34 (4):485-516.
    The term “political” egalitarianism is used here, not to refer to equality within the political sphere, but rather in John Rawls’s sense, to refer to a conception of egalitarian distributive justice that is capable of serving as the object of an overlapping consensus in a pluralistic society.1 Thus “political” egalitarianism is political in the same way that Rawls’s “political” liberalism is political. The central task when it comes to developing such a conception of equality is to determine what constraints a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Daniel Hicks (2012). Scientific Practices and Their Social Context. Dissertation, U. of Notre Dame
    My dissertation combines philosophy of science and political philosophy. Drawing directly on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and inspired by John Dewey, I develop two rival conceptions of scientific practice. I show that these rivals are closely linked to the two basic sides in the science and values debate -- the debate over the extent to which ethical and political values may legitimately influence scientific inquiry. Finally, I start to develop an account of justice that is sensitive to these legitimate (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Louis-Philippe Hodgson (2012). Why the Basic Structure? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 42 (3-4):303-334.
    John Rawls famously holds that the basic structure is the 'primary subject of justice.'1 By this, he means that his two principles of justice apply only to a society's major political and social institutions, including chiefly the constitution, the economic and legal systems, and (more contentiously) the family structure.2 This thesis — call it the basic structure restriction — entails that the celebrated difference principle has a narrower scope than one might have expected. It doesn't apply directly to choices that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Ian Hunt (2011). How Egalitarian is Rawls's Theory of Justice? Philosophical Papers 39 (2):155-181.
    Gerald Cohen's critique of John Rawls's theory of justice is that it is concerned only with the justice of social institutions, and must thus arbitrarily draw a line between those inequalities excluded and those allowed by the basic structure. Cohen claims that a proper concern with the interests of the least advantaged would rule out 'incentives' for 'talented' individuals. I argue that Rawls's assumption that the subject of justice is the basic structure of society does not arbitrarily restrict the concerns (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Kyle Johannsen (2013). Cohen on Rawls. Social Philosophy Today 29:135-149.
    G. A. Cohen is well known within contemporary political philosophy for claiming that the scope of principles of justice extends beyond the design of institutions to citizens’ personal choices. More recently, he’s also received attention for claiming that principles of justice are normatively ultimate, i.e., that they’re necessary for the justification of action guiding principles (regulatory rules) but are unsuitable to guide political practice themselves. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between these claims as they’re applied (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Kyle Johannsen (2013). Cohen on Rawls: Personal Choice and the Ideal of Justice. Social Philosophy Today 29:135-49.
    G.A. Cohen is well known within contemporary political philosophy for claiming that the scope of principles of justice extends beyond the design of institutions to citizens’ personal choices. More recently, he’s also received attention for claiming that principles of justice are normatively ultimate, i.e., that they’re necessary for the justification of action guiding principles (regulatory rules) but are unsuitable to guide political practice themselves. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between these claims as they’re applied in (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Hye-Ryoung Kang (2008). A Critique of “Idealized” Non-Ideal Justice Theory in Rawls' Laws of People. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:299-308.
    Distinguishing between “abstraction” and “idealization,” O’Neill has warned that idealized accounts of justice are misleading because “insofar as contemporary theories of justice start by assuming ‘ideal’ conception of persons, rationality or independence... their theories will be inapplicable to the human case.” The principles of justice in Theories of Justice by John Rawls has often been criticized as a typical example of such an idealized account of justice. However, in response to such criticism, Rawls may contend that the problem with the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Hye-Ryoung Kang (2008). Idealized Non-Ideal Justice Theory in Law of Peoples. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 25:37-44.
    In this paper, I provide a critique of Rawls’ non-ideal theory by arguing that in as much as background assumptions about what non-ideal conditions mean are derived from his idealized theory, not from existing actual conditions, his non-ideal theory is also idealized and flawed, similarly to his ideal theory. Thus, first, I argue that idealized assumptions which are used in the justification of justice principles are not neutral to members in non-ideal conditions; and second, such accounts systematically exclude some sort (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Mounir Kchaou (2007). Le Juste Et Ses Normes: John Rawls Et le Concept du Politique. Faculté́́ des Sciences Humaines Et Sociales.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Wolfgang Kersting (2006). Gerechtigkeit Und Öffentliche Vernunft: Über John Rawls' Politischen Liberalismus. Mentis.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Eva Feder Kittay (1999). Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality and Dependence. Routledge.
    Where society is viewed as an association of equal and autonomous persons, the work of caring for dependents, "love's labors", figure neither in political ...
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Sharon Krause (2005). Desiring Justice: Motivation and Justification in Rawls and Habermas. Contemporary Political Theory 4 (4):363-385.
  32. Ivar Labukt (2009). Rawls on the Practicability of Utilitarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (2):201-221.
    John Rawls's claim to have demonstrated the superiority of his own two principles of justice to the principle of utility has generated fairly extensive critical discussion. However, this discussion has almost completely disregarded those of Rawls's arguments that are concerned with practicability, despite the significance accorded to them by Rawls himself. This article addresses the three most important of Rawls's objections against the practicability of utilitarianism: (1) that utilitarianism would generate too much disagreement to be politically workable, (2) that a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Percy B. Lehning (2006). Rawls. Lemniscaat.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Percy B. Lehning (1998). The Coherence of Rawls's Plea for Democratic Equality. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1 (4):1-41.
    In 1971, John Rawls published A Theory of Justice, the burden of which was strongly egalitarian. But Rawls eventually came to the conclusion that the project of working out a stable, well?ordered society as argued in A Theory of Justice had failed. In 1993, in Political Liberalism, Rawls sought to establish a sounder theoretical foundation for a stable, well?ordered society. Rawls was widely viewed, however, as having given up egalitarianism in Political Liberalism ? the commitment to a fair distribution, or (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Andrew Lister (2013). The “Mirage” of Social Justice: Hayek Against (and For) Rawls. Critical Review 25 (3-4):409-444.
  36. Thaddeus Metz (2000). Arbitrariness, Justice, and Respect. Social Theory and Practice 26 (1):25-45.
    I examine John Rawls' objection to libertarianism that it permits economic shares to be distributed in a morally arbitrary way. This argument was dropped largely for two reasons. First, talk of "arbitrariness" has been vague and associated with implausible views about moral desert, collective assets, and noumenal selves. Second, several criticisms which Robert Nozick made 25 years ago have gone unanswered. In this essay, I reconstruct the arbitrariness argument, giving it a new, Kantian interpretation, and I show that the new (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. D. Miller (1977). Books in Review : Understanding Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of a Theory of Justice by Robert Paul Wolff. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Pp. X, 224. $3.95 (Paper), $13.50. [REVIEW] Political Theory 5 (4):541-544.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Martin O'Neill (2009). Entreprises et conventionnalisme: régulation, impôt et justice sociale. Raison Publique.
    The focus of this article is on the place of the limited-liability joint stock corporation in a satisfactory account of social justice and, more specifically, the question of how such corporations should be regulated and taxed in order to secure social justice. -/- Most discussion in liberal political philosophy looks at state institutions, on the one hand, and individuals, on the other hand, without giving much attention to intermediate institutions such as corporations. This is in part a consequence of a (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Martin O'Neill & Thad Williamson (2009). Property-Owning Democracy and the Demands of Justice. Living Reviews in Democracy 1:1-10.
    John Rawls is arguably the most important political philosopher of the past century. His theory of justice has set the agenda for debate in mainstream political philosophy for the past forty years, and has had an important influence in economics, law, sociology, and other disciplines. However, despite the importance and popularity of Rawls's work, there is no clear picture of what a society that met Rawls's principles of justice would actually look like. This article sets out to explore that question.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. A. Pampapathy Rao (1981). Three Lectures on John Rawls. I.P.Q. Publication Series, University of Poona.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Rodney G. Peffer, A Modified Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice: 'Justice as Fair Rights'.
    In my 1990 work – Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice – I argued for four modifications of Rawls’s principles of social justice and rendered a modified version of his theory in four principles, the first of which is the Basic Rights Principle demanding the protection of people’s security and subsistence rights. In both his Political Liberalism (1993) and Justice as Fairness (2001) Rawls explicitly refers to my version of his theory, clearly accepting three of my four proposed modifications but rejecting (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Fabienne Peter (2009). Rawlsian Justice. In Paul Anand, Prastanta Pattanaik & Clemens Puppe (eds.), The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press. 433--456.
    Rawls’ theory of justice builds on the social contract tradition to offer an alternative to utilitarianism. Rawls singles out justice – not maximum welfare or efficiency – as “the first virtue of social institutions”. Economists were quick to realize the relevance of Rawls’ theory of justice for economics. Early contributions in welfare economics and social choice theory typically attempted to incorporate Rawls’ ideas into a welfarist framework. Current research in normative economics comes closer to Rawls’ original proposal of a non-consequentialist (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Thomas Porter (2009). The Legacy of John Rawls. Contemporary Political Theory 8 (2):237.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Chad Schoelandt (2012). Robert S. Taylor, Reconstructing Rawls: The Kantian Foundations of Justice as Fairness. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 46 (1):123-129.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. James P. Sterba (2012). Taylor, Robert. Reconstructing Rawls: The Kantian Foundations of Justice As Fairness. Review of Metaphysics 66 (1):172-173.
  46. Kok-Chor Tan (2008). A Defense of Luck Egalitarianism. Journal of Philosophy 105 (11):665-690.
  47. Alan Thomas (2014). Sen on Rawls's “Transcendental Institutionalism”: An Analysis and Critique. European Journal of Political Theory 13 (3):241-263.
    This paper evaluates Amartya Sen’s criticisms of Rawls’s theory of justice, in particular his critique of the ideal versus nonideal distinction in Rawls, and corrects what I take to be various misconceptions that underpin this critique. I will then move on to the more general issue of how we are to understand the role of the ideal versus nonideal distinction (and how we ought not to understand it) before going on to consider one focused application of Sen’s ideas. I will (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Patrick Tomlin (2012). Can I Be a Luck Egaliatarian and a Rawlsian? Ethical Perspectives 19 (3):371-397.
    Rawls’s difference principle and the position dubbed ‘luck egalitarianism’ are often viewed as competing theories of distributive justice. However, recent work has emphasised that Rawlsians and luck egalitarians are working with different understandings of the concept of justice, and thus not only propose different theories, but different theories of different things. Once they are no longer seen in direct competition, there are some questions to be asked about whether these two theories can be consistently endorsed alongside one another. In this (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Bertil Tungodden (2000). Egalitarianism: Is Leximin the Only Option? Economics and Philosophy 16 (2):229-245.
    The most influential egalitarian perspective is undoubtedly Rawls's (1971, 1993), which assigns absolute priority to the least advantaged in society (the difference principle). However, many have claimed that even though an egalitarian perspective should imply some priority to the worst off, the Rawlsian perspective is too demanding. One response to this criticism is to argue in favour of an egalitarian perspective that never assigns absolute priority to the worse off, but which still includes limited priority to those members of society (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Caroline Walsh (2007). Rawls and Walzer on Non-Domestic Justice. Contemporary Political Theory 6 (4):419.
1 — 50 / 118