A Theory of Justice: Original Edition

5 Responses to “A Theory of Justice: Original Edition”

1. Adrian says:

   September 2, 2010 at 6:34 pm

   inconsequential jargon

   This pseudo-philosophical work is long, insubstantial and dull. The leader tries to hide his unproductiveness by avoiding the very basic and fundamental social and human problem, the problem of universal injustice. One wonders why on planet a name should attempt such a work! The title itself betrays the leader’s philosophical incompetence: “A Theory of Justice.” Hasn’t he read Plato? Doesn’t he realize that justice is not a theory, but in fact practice? What on planet is a theory of justice, which cannot be place to practice? Right at the beginning of his book Rawls insists on a “veil of ignorance” in order to have fairness to start with.; that is plunging into a book, which has nothing give, which can do nothing to change the world we live in. We are not blind. We know too well that there can be no justice in a society whose members are not blind and deaf, and know too well that there are differences separating individuals. How can anyone insist on capitalism, annual growth and availability of goods for all when the world is limited and the planet with its limited natural resources cannot sustain unchecked human growth? And what is more, he can never define what excellent are, which must be available to everyone. Is raw materialism justice? Are we chickens in a coop, absolutely predictable? The leader should have examined the history of philosophy a small more carefully, which is nothing additional than a series of failures in putting the cart before the horse, that is theory before practice. Haven’t we learned the lesson from communism and its disastrous results? Marxism too was an elaborate theory, but in reality turned out to be a yucky injustice to all. Is the unquestioned democracy the final truth? Before embarking on another long, empty and pretentious “theory” lacking foundation a thinker should make him/herself well acquainted with human scenery. It is too terrible that this jargon is regularly taught at colleges and universities, forcing naïve students read this book, chat about it, and even worse, write term-papers on it. For persons who wish to have a clear-cut understanding of social problems and a sound theory of justice I recommend Plato’s Republic. Literary jargon is not philosophy.
   
   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
2. Charles Darwin says:

   September 2, 2010 at 7:17 pm

   It’s been several years since I read the book. Saw it recently, the book seems to be a favorite, of the coffee-house, talky, chattering, left, Marx-Freud-Rousseau crowd.

   But, all this at talk of a “just society” and the “deprived” can and does mean only one thing: A POLICE STATE.

   Anytime, a so-called “theory” attempts to make a utopian state, there will be coercion. Anytime, there is coercion, you will flout upon individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to govern one’s own life.

   As a replacement for of a “police state” in the form of a theory of justice. He should have written a book titled “A Theory of Liberty” Any society lacking liberty as the foundation will have coercion and hence the destruction of liberty. But, this book remains the coffee-house favorite.

   Rawls was an “Ivory Tower Pinhead”. A brief bio states that he was a professor all his adult life. What kind of adults spend their whole life having fake, sham, welfare for intellectual, make-judge jobs like being a professor of political theory. What dat????? Oh, Please get a real job.

   #1. THOSE CANNOT DO WILL TEACH…..

   So much for the ivory tower pinhead. A theory of justice will lead to a police state, a state of coercion. What we need is theory of LIBERTY.
   Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5
3. John A. Salagaj says:

   September 2, 2010 at 8:40 pm

   I read this book when I was a senior at Fordham, and was struck by the predictability of the argument. Rawls may be a Harvard professor, but sounds more like a speech writer for Adlai Stevenson who attempted to write a textbook. My advice to the young, skip this reactionary BS and do some thinking on your own!
   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
4. Jeffrey L. Armbruster says:

   September 2, 2010 at 9:59 pm

   Rumor has it that the difference between a criminal act (theft) and moral redistribution of income is 1) who you steal from (stealing from the wealthy, of course, is moral — according to Rawls and Bolsheviks), and 2) who receives the loot (the non-wealthy makes it moral), and 3) who commits the act (the state/society, of course also makes theft moral; example – taxation), and 4) your intentions (redistribution of income). To look at this another way, if your national breaks into your house and steals your money, that’s a crime (unless your national is poor — which would then be moral and Justice, according to Rawls’ formula). If the community comes into your house and steals from you, it’s officially authorized and moral Justice, again, according to Rawls. Because, according to Rawls, if, before you were born, you were to vote with everyone on how physical world society should be structured, you’d vote to have the state guarantee that everyone was equal, or they would be compensated somehow for being born (unjustly) less-equal. How? By compensating persons with less by stealing from persons with more. So persons with more would be like oh, say … a milk-cow who gets milked to serve persons with less. So persons with more would become a resource, or state-owned slaves to persons with less … because “society” (the Robin Hoods and Rawls of the world) deemed this as moral Justice. Rawls does not take into account persons who are willing to take on risk, entrepreneurs, students of life who work to earn an “A” vs. students who earn an “F”. He points out that many people are born into hard situations through no fault of their own. Right. But that does not implicate persons within society who are born into better situations as the cause, nor are persons who are born into better situations reliable for building up the difference. Forcing the “wealthier” ones to be accountable for the unfairness within life and pay the bill isn’t Justice or moral. It would simply be an one-sided law. Some people see Rawls’ theory as a blueprint for a future generation utopia (like the Bolsheviks envisioned Marxism). I see it as an insane blueprint for slavery, and a powerful dis-incentive for earning personal reward and merit. In a sense, this book is an argument against the individual. It sees the world through a blurred lense where the leader only recognizes masses of people — he doesn’t admit any individuals (unless they were born as victims). Curious. How do you experience life … as a group-mind (an oxymoron if there ever was one), a collective? Or as a unique, isolated, independent, individual? There should be societal incentives to help each additional. Okay. But when it is forced (theft of property permanently implies force), it is no longer an issue of morality or justice — it’s simply a law. Lacking personal choice being involved there is no morality as an issue, by definition. Transforming advantaged individuals into mules forced to carry the burdens of the world is a definition of justice for whom?

   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
5. unraveler says:

   September 2, 2010 at 11:01 pm

   John Rawls would feign profess

   That over power his does not obsess,

   And that his first principle,

   (if he is to have principles at all)

   Is most exstensive equal liberty for all.

   But I doubt this is really right.

   For what he wants for me and you

   Is to be veiled, simple bots

   And see ourselves as just have-nots.

   For in that placid state of “dumb”

   Ambition

   (Pink Floyd, forgive me)

   Would grow comfortably numb.

   We all would cheerfully choose

   The beating of the socialist drum.

   The welfare state would grow immense

   And cradle us in its kind hands.

   And if you missed this poet’s brew,

   I will clarify in prose for you:

   Rawls imagines that all of us have to imagine ourselves being both ignorant and have nots. And having imagined ourselves as such we would adopt a socialist public policy. His philosophizing is absurd and beside the point. “A Theory of Justice” is one of the most overrated books of the twentieth century.
   Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5