Author
|
Topic: John Rawls is dead
|
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621
|
posted 28 November 2002 02:48 AM
I didn't know this until I saw the front page of Monday's French daily Liberation in a newsstandHere are some obits and articles. Le Monde had the most extensive coverage. NY Times a shorter version of the NY Times article in the IHT (no reg. req'd) The Philosopher Who Changed His Subject (Financial Times) quote: John Rawls, the most gifted and influential political philosopher of the 20th century, has died at the age of 82. Educated at Princeton University, he had been a professor of philosophy at Harvard University since 1982.For many years, Rawls lived in Lexington, Massachusetts, where he died of a heart attack after having been weakened by a series of strokes. Thomas Nagel, one of the few of us still writing who can remember the world of political philosophy before Rawls, dedicated a book: "To John Rawls who changed the subject". A Theory of Justice, published in 1971, changed the subject in both of the ways in which the phrase can be read. Rawls redirected the conversation by insisting that the primary focus of political philosophy should be on the institutions that distribute (not necessarily as a result of anybody's deliberate decision) unequal life chances to the members of a society and then transmit those inequalities from one generation to the next. He also transformed the enterprise by demonstrating that it was possible, after half a century devoted largely to sterile word games, to produce a powerful and coherent piece of theorising that could stand comparison with any of the classics in its ambitions and achievements. Rawls did not waste time making programmatic announcements about the way in which political philosophy should be written - he just sat down and did it.
Libération: Rawls écrivait juste quote: Politiquement, Rawls a été situé à peu près partout, et d'aucuns ont fait de lui le philosophe capable de conduire «au-delà de Marx». Son intention a été de penser une société juste. Celle-ci n'est pas une société égalitaire, ni, encore moins, une société qui ne se soucie d'aucune égalité et laisse établir les inégalités en faisant «librement» jouer les lois du marché. Mais une société équitable dans laquelle les positions donnant le plus de bénéfices sont accessibles à tous et où les bénéfices minimaux ou maximaux obtenus par certains profitent au maximum aux laissés-pour-compte.Eternelle question, dira-t-on. Mais que le théoricien américain a traitée de telle manière que, depuis, tous les penseurs politiques sont obligés de se situer «par rapport à Rawls».
LE Monde had by far the best coverage. Because France takes the life of the mind seriously. L'exigence de la Justice Décès du philosophe John Rawls Enthousiasme et malentendus "Quelle ampleur donner à l'Union européenne?" [ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621
|
posted 28 November 2002 10:44 AM
Well I never actually got very far into A Theory of Justice. However, as the ideas are quite current, I have some acquaintance with them. Here is a possibly botched and certainly simplistic account.Rawls asks what social arrangement agents would assent to in an "original position" where they did not know their individual portion of fate (the "veil of ignorance")-- whether they would be master or slave, or what have you. In making this decision they are rational agents, free of the individuality, personality, cultural preference that would define them in an actual individual destiny. As a result, they are indifferent to other ends (religion, poetry, or what have you). Rawls argues that they would contract for that arrangement in which the least well-off person was better off than in any other arrangement. I'm not sure of the technical argument -- why, for example, he does not argue for the society in which most people are better off than in any other. In any case, by this means he works his way towards a fairly strong picture of "distributive justice" that is framed in terms of liberalism rather than traditional socialist (eg Marxist) principles. That part of the argument I will try to bring up later. Rawls himself was known personally to favour worker-ownership of the means of production, because he did not think that agents in the original position would contract for a social arrangement in which only the very few controlled the means by which the many made their living; but he did not argue this case in his book, as he felt, perhaps, the argument was not strong enough. In his book, he says that his conception of distributive justice is compatible with different conceptions of property rights. [ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: rasmus_raven ]
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr. Mr. Ben
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3265
|
posted 28 November 2002 10:46 AM
Reaching back to my philosophy class two years ago, the Original Position is a thought experiment that postulates a time before society in which people are planning what kind of a society that they will create.Now, because no-one knows how they will be brought into society, it makes rational, self-interested sense to make an equal society. That way, while you may not have the opportunity to become exceedingly wealthy, but you also don't have the risk of being stuck in a position of abject poverty. That right? Edit: D'oh! Beaten to the punch! [ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Mr. Ben ]
From: Mechaslovakia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|