David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 2 (02):225- (1986)
Perhaps the most salient feature of Rawls's theory of justice which at once attracts supporters and repels critics is its apparent egalitarian conclusion as to how economic goods are to be distributed. Indeed, many of Rawls's sympathizers may find this result intuitively appealing, and regard it as Rawls's enduring contribution to the topic of economic justice, despite technical deficiencies in Rawls's contractarian, decision-theoretic argument for it which occupy the bulk of the critical literature. Rawls himself, having proposed a “coherence” theory of justification in metaethics, must regard the claim that his distributive criterion “is a strongly egalitarian conception” as independently a part of the overarching moral argument. The alleged egalitarian impact of Rawls's theory is crucial again in normative ethics where Rawls is thought to have developed a major counter-theory to utilitarianism , one of the most popular criticisms of which has been its alleged inadequacy in handling questions of distributive justice. Utilitarians can argue, however, as Brandt recently has, that the diminishing marginal utility of money, along with ignorance of income-welfare curves, would require a utility-maximizing distribution to be substantially egalitarian . The challenge is therefore for Rawls to show that his theory yields an ethically preferable degree of equality
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Brian M. Barry (1973). The Liberal Theory of Justice. Oxford,Clarendon Press.
Richard B. Brandt (1998). A Theory of the Good and the Right. Prometheus Books.
David Braybrooke (1973). Utilitarianism with a Difference: Rawls's Position in Ethics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 3 (2):303 - 331.
Keith Graham & Norman Daniels (1978). Reading Rawls. Philosophical Quarterly 28 (111):179.
Citations of this work BETA
Stephen W. Ball (1988). Evolution, Explanation, and the Fact/Value Distinction. Biology and Philosophy 3 (3):317-348.
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.
Stephen W. Ball (1990). Uncertainty in Moral Theory: An Epistemic Defense of Rule-Utilitarian Liberties. Theory and Decision 29 (2):133-160.
Stephen W. Ball (1990). Dworkin and His Critics: The Relevance of Ethical Theory in Philosophy of Law. Ratio Juris 3 (3):340-384.
Similar books and articles
Helga Varden (2010). G. A. Cohen's Rescuing Justice and Equality - A Critical Engagement. Social Philosophy Today 26:175-189.
Larry A. Alexander (1985). Fair Equality of Opportunity. Philosophy Research Archives 11:197-208.
Nir Eyal (2005). ‘Perhaps the Most Important Primary Good’: Self-Respect and Rawls’s Principles of Justice. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (2):195-219.
S. Scheffler & V. Munoz-Dardé (2005). Equality and Division: Values in Principle. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 79 (79):255-284.
C. Edwin Baker (2008). Rawls, Equality, and Democracy. Philosophy and Social Criticism 34 (3):203-246.
Timothy D. Roche (1982). Utilitarianism Versus Rawls. Social Theory and Practice 8 (2):189-212.
David Phillips (2011). Sidgwickian Ethics. Oxford University Press.
David Lyons (1972). Rawls Versus Utilitarianism. Journal of Philosophy 64 (18):535-545.
Rodney G. Peffer, What is to Be Distributed? The Paideia Project.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads30 ( #81,920 of 1,696,506 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #113,165 of 1,696,506 )
How can I increase my downloads?