This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
20 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. Marcus Arvan (2014). First Steps Toward a Nonideal Theory of Justice. Ethics and Global Politics 7 (3):95-117.
    Theorists have long debated whether John Rawls’ conception of justice as fairness can be extended to nonideal (i.e. unjust) social and political conditions, and if so, what the proper way of extending it is. This paper argues that in order to properly extend justice as fairness to nonideal conditions, Rawls’ most famous innovation – the original position – must be reconceived in the form of a “nonideal original position.” I begin by providing a new analysis of the ideal/nonideal theory distinction (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  2. Marcus Arvan (2008). A Nonideal Theory of Justice. Dissertation, University of Arizona
    This dissertation defends a “non-ideal theory” of justice: a systematic theory of how to respond justly to injustice. Chapter 1 argues that contemporary political philosophy lacks a non-ideal theory of justice, and defends a variation of John Rawls’ famous original position – the Non-Ideal Original Position – as a method with which to construct such a theory. Finally, Chapter 1 uses the Non-Ideal Original Position to argue for a Fundamental Principle of Non-Ideal Theory: a principle that requires injustices to be (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. C. Edwin Baker (1985). Sandel on Rawls. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 133:895-928.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Warren Bonett (ed.) (forthcoming). The Australian Book of Atheism. Embiggen Books.
  5. Robert Briscoe (2001). Faith, Social Hope, and Clarity. [REVIEW] Boston Book Review.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Thom Brooks & Martha C. Nussbaum (eds.) (2015). Rawls's Political Liberalism. Cup.
    Widely hailed as one of the most significant works in modern political philosophy, John Rawls's _Political Liberalism_ defended a powerful vision of society that respects reasonable ways of life, both religious and secular. These core values have never been more critical as anxiety grows over political and religious difference and new restrictions are placed on peaceful protest and individual expression. This anthology of original essays suggests new, groundbreaking applications of Rawls's work in multiple disciplines and contexts. Thom Brooks, Martha Nussbaum, (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. William A. Edmundson, Fair Value and Ownership of the Means of Production.
    John Rawls argued that welfare-state capitalism would be rejected in a constitutional convention called to implement the principles of justice chosen in the original position. But neither property-owning democracy nor liberal democratic socialism could be ruled out. Property-owning democracy allows private ownership of major productive assets, while liberal democratic socialism does not. Rawls came to rely on the first-principle guarantee of the fair value of political liberty in his defense of the difference principle. Bur fair value lays the basis for (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Terence Rajivan Edward, Non-Social Human Beings in the Original Position.
    This paper argues that Rawls must commit himself to non-social human beings to defend his original position procedure.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Axel Gosseries (2009). La Question Générationnelle Et l'Héritage Rawlsien. Raisons Politiques (34):31-56.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. D. Clayton Hubin (1980). Minimizing Maximin. Philosophical Studies 37 (4):363 - 372.
    In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls provides several arguments contractors in the original position using maximin reasoning, which leads directly to the difference principle. These arguments are inadequate to support the claim that maximin reasoning is the uniquely rational approach to choice in the original position.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Robert Jubb (2011). Rawls and Rousseau: Amour-Propre and the Strains of Commitment. [REVIEW] Res Publica 17 (3):245-260.
    In this paper I try to illuminate the Rawlsian architectonic through an interpretation of what Rawls’ Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy say about Rousseau. I argue that Rawls’ emphasis there when discussing Rousseau on interpreting amour-propre so as to make it compatible with a life in at least some societies draws attention to, and helps explicate, an analogous feature of his own work, the strains of commitment broadly conceived. Both are centrally connected with protecting a sense of self (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Holly Lawford-Smith (2010). Debate: Ideal Theory—A Reply to Valentini. Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (3):357-368.
    In her ‘On the apparent paradox of ideal theory’, Laura Valentini combines three supposedly plausible premises to derive the paradoxical result that ideal theory is both unable to, and indispensable for, guiding action. Her strategy is to undermine one of the three premises by arguing that there are good and bad kinds of ideal theory, and only the bad kinds are vulnerable to the strongest version of their opponents’ attack. By undermining one of the three premises she releases ideal theorists (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  13. Thaddeus Metz (2002). Review of John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 111 (4):618-620.
  14. Michael Moehler (forthcoming). Impartiality, Priority, and Justice: The Veil of Ignorance Reconsidered. Journal of Social Philosophy.
    In this article, I defend the veil of ignorance against the objection that the device is inadequate for deriving demands of justice, because the veil of ignorance purportedly enforces a stronger form of impartiality than Kant’s categorical imperative and, primarily as a consequence, it generally leads to non-prioritarian conclusions. I show that the moral ideal of impartiality that is expressed by the veil of ignorance is not essentially different from Kant’s notion of impartiality and that it does not generally lead (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Michael Moehler (2015). The Rawls–Harsanyi Dispute: A Moral Point of View. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97 (1):n/a-n/a.
    Central to the Rawls–Harsanyi dispute is the question of whether the core modeling device of Rawls' theory of justice, the original position, justifies Rawls' principles of justice, as Rawls suggests, or whether it justifies the average utility principle, as Harsanyi suggests. Many commentators agree with Harsanyi and consider this dispute to be primarily about the correct application of normative decision theory to Rawls' original position. I argue that, if adequately conceived, the Rawls–Harsanyi dispute is not primarily a dispute about the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Michael Moehler (2010). The (Stabilized) Nash Bargaining Solution as a Principle of Distributive Justice. Utilitas 22 (4):447-473.
    It is argued that the Nash bargaining solution cannot serve as a principle of distributive justice because (i) it cannot secure stable cooperation in repeated interactions and (ii) it cannot capture our moral intuitions concerning distributive questions. In this article, I propose a solution to the first problem by amending the Nash bargaining solution so that it can maintain stable cooperation among rational bargainers. I call the resulting principle the stabilized Nash bargaining solution. The principle defends justice in the form (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  17. Mattias Skipper Rasmussen (forthcoming). Justice as Fairness: A Reinterpretation. Semikolon.
    According to a number of communitarian thinkers, John Rawls' theory of justice suffers from a commitment to an overly individualistic or atomistic conception of the human self. In this paper, I argue that the most plausible reconstruction of Rawls' response to this criticism is unsound. I also propose a novel response to the communitarian critique on behalf of Rawls.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Jack Reynolds (2006). Negotiating the Non-Negotiable: Rawls, Derrida and the Intertwining of Political Calculation and Ultra-Politics. Theory and Event 9 (3):15.
    I examine the relationship that obtains between the work of Derrida and Rawls, not least because of the conviction that Derrida (and post-structuralism more generally) offers certain invaluable things to political thought that analytic political philosophy would do well to take account of, particularly as concerns the relation between time and politics. In Derrida’s case, his emphasis on the radical difference of the future, the ‘to come’, serves as a guardrail against political absolutisms of all sorts. On his view, when (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Max Seeger (2011). A Critique of the Incentives Argument for Inequalities. Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 25 (1):40-52.
    According to the incentives argument, inequalities in material goods are justifiable if they are to the benefit of the worst off members of society. In this paper, I point out what is easily overlooked, namely that inequalities are justifiable only if they are to the overall benefit of the worst off, that is, in terms of both material and social goods. I then address the question how gains in material goods can be weighed against probable losses in social goods. The (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. John S. Wilkins (2010). Secularism Protects Religions. In Warren Bonett (ed.), The Australian Book of Atheism. Embiggen Books