Suchergebnisse

The article has three parts. The first is devoted to the analysis of some features of Italian philosophy that might be used to explain why analytic philosophy of politics, and analytic philosophy in general, has few practitioners. The second part gives an explanation of the relatively small audience Rawls has among liberals in Italy. Some features of the Italian liberal tradition might be helpful in explaining this fact; hence a short presentation of these features (as exemplified by Croce) is outlined. The third part deals with the reception of Rawls's ideas among the small group of analytic political philosophers in Italy.

This article analyses the reception of John Rawls's thought by Otfried Höffe, Jürgen Habermas and other political theorists on the German liberal left. It argues that, ironically, as Rawls's theory has become more historically self-conscious and sociologically oriented since A Theory of Justice, Habermas, while denying any fundamental difference between him and Rawls in this `neo-Kantian family quarrel', has moved in the opposite direction. One might even say that there has been some mid-Atlantic convergence in political theory. Nevertheless, there remain peculiarities of German political thought, in particular its more sociological bent, a (positive or negative) fixation on the state, and the persistently felt need finally to reconcile a perceived conflict between liberalism and democracy.

Rawls' primary legacy is not that he standardised a particular view of justice, but rather that he standardised a particular method of arguing about it: justification via reflective equilibrium. Yet this method, despite such standardisation, is often misunderstood in at least four ways. First, we miss its continuity across his various works. Second, we miss the way in which it unifies other justificatory ideas, such as the 'original position' and an 'overlapping consensus'. Third, we miss its fundamentally empirical character, given that it turns facts about the thoughts in our head into principles for the regulation of our political existence. Fourth, we miss some of the implications of that empiricism, including its tension with moral realism, relativism, and conservatism.

Rawls on constitutionalism and constitutional law / Frank I. Michelman -- Rawls and the law / Ronald Dworkin -- Are there limits to constitutional change? : Rawls on comprehensive doctrines, unconstitutional amendments, and the basis of equality / Charles A. Kelbley -- A backdoor to policy making : the use of philosophers by the Supreme Court / Neomi Rao -- Does philosophy deserve a place at the Supreme Court? / Thom Brooks -- Immigration, association, and the family / Matthew Lister -- Political liberalism / Michael J. Sandel -- The subject of liberalism / Frank I. Michelman -- Some problems with public reason in John Rawls's Political liberalism / Kent Greenawalt -- Can a liberal take his own side in an argument? : the case for John Rawls's idea of political liberalism / Ronald C. Den Otter -- On belling the cat : Rawls and tort as corrective justice / Kevin A. Kordana and David H. Tabachnick -- Private order and public justice : Kant and Rawls / Arthur Ripstein -- Rawls and reparation / Martin D. Carcieri -- From Utopia to Kazanistan : John Rawls and the law of peoples / John Tasioulas -- The incoherence between Rawls's theories of justice / Thomas W. Pogge -- Why Rawls is not a cosmopolitan egalitarian / Leif Wenar -- Preventing military humanitarian intervention? : John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas on a just global order / Regina Kreide -- Human rights and liberal toleration / David Reidy.

In this article, the author evaluates whether Rawls rightly believed that his theory of justice could be interpreted as Kantian. Rawls' Kantianism is primarily treated as the general ethical foundation of his theory of justice. Providing insight into the debate conducted on Kantian's interpretation in the 1970s and early 1980s, the author explains the first doubts about Rawls' Kantianism, and how Rawls' defenders subsequently responded to them. At the center of the debate was the question of whether Rawls' principles of justice were essentially the fruit of heteronomous rather than autonomous motivation, and whether they could be treated as "categorical imperatives." Noting the significant differences in the conception of moral motivation between Kant and Rawls, the author explains how and why Rawls' Kantianism is essential to the history of moral and political philosophy. Finally, the author suggests that Rawls' Kantianism should be treated more like Kantian inspiration rather than Kantian interpretation in a literal sense.

Introduces a symposium on John Rawls, which considers the degree to which Rawlsian liberalism is shaped by, or potentially useful for, analyzing democratic & international politics. Central concepts employed by Rawls in honing his political philosophy are described, as are primary political roadblocks to social cooperation that formed the political backdrop against which he shaped his mode of liberalism. The participants in this symposium provide a thumbnail of the current political dilemmas for which considerations of Rawls's insights (& weaknesses) may be efficacious. K. Coddon

The author reviews the interchange between Jurgen Habermas & John Rawls, published in The Journal of Philosophy in Mar 1995. Habermas's criticism of Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is constructive & immanent. Habermas raises three objections against Rawls's theory. The first is that Rawls's design of original position is not adequate to clarify & secure the standpoint of impartial judgment of the principles of justice. The second is that Rawls should make a sharper distinction between the question of justification & that of acceptance of a theory of justice. The third is that Rawls does not succeed in bringing the liberties of moderns into harmony with the liberties of pre-moderns. The first two of Habermas's objections reveal the main thought of his criticism of Rawls, which is that Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is substantive, not procedural, & therefore is wrong. The third of Habermas's objections refers to a consequence of Rawls's theory of a rigid boundary between the political & non-political identities of citizens. In his reply to Habermas, Rawls emphasizes two main differences between his own & Habermas's theory. The first is that Habermas's theory is "comprehensive," while Rawls's is "political." The is that Habermas uses as means of representation the situation of ideal discourse, which is a part of his theory of communicative action, while Rawls uses the original position. Rawls answers in turn Habermas' objections & defends his liberal theory of justice as fairness as substantive justice. Adapted from the source document.

The author reviews the interchange between Jurgen Habermas & John Rawls, published in The Journal of Philosophy in Mar 1995. Habermas's criticism of Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is constructive & immanent. Habermas raises three objections against Rawls's theory. The first is that Rawls's design of original position is not adequate to clarify & secure the standpoint of impartial judgment of the principles of justice. The second is that Rawls should make a sharper distinction between the question of justification & that of acceptance of a theory of justice. The third is that Rawls does not succeed in bringing the liberties of moderns into harmony with the liberties of pre-moderns. The first two of Habermas's objections reveal the main thought of his criticism of Rawls, which is that Rawls's theory of justice as fairness is substantive, not procedural, & therefore is wrong. The third of Habermas's objections refers to a consequence of Rawls's theory of a rigid boundary between the political & non-political identities of citizens. In his reply to Habermas, Rawls emphasizes two main differences between his own & Habermas's theory. The first is that Habermas's theory is "comprehensive," while Rawls's is "political." The is that Habermas uses as means of representation the situation of ideal discourse, which is a part of his theory of communicative action, while Rawls uses the original position. Rawls answers in turn Habermas' objections & defends his liberal theory of justice as fairness as substantive justice. Adapted from the source document.

This article discusses the reception of Rawls's work in Britain. A number of difficulties are first identified in attempting to distinguish a distinctively British context of reception. Because of the extensive commonality with British political theory, Rawls's work was almost instantly absorbed within political theory in Britain. Important early criticisms focused on Rawls's methodology, his conception of the original position and his treatment of liberty. Reactions on the left indicated a failure to appreciate the extent of Rawls's egalitarianism. It is further suggested that certain features of his work - its abstractness, relative lack of an historical dimension, strongly normative character, constitutionalism and anti-political bent - have fitted less comfortably within British political theory. It is also noted that Rawls's impact on political thought in Britain outside of academic political theory has been negligible. The article concludes by speculating that Rawls's influence on political theory in Britain may be on the wane.