Suchergebnisse

The ideas of John Rawls have revolutionized the shape and content of much of contemporary political and social philosophy. His A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism , (1993) among other works, have been a rich source of ideas which continue to influence contemporary discussions about justice and politics. Although much has been written on the political philosophy of Rawls, there has not been any in-depth study focused on the implications of the ideas of Rawls for contemporary existing democracies. Drawing on some of his earlier work, the author offers a detailed exploration of ho

The ideas of John Rawls have revolutionized the shape and content of much of contemporary political and social philosophy. His A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism, (1993) among other works, have been a rich source of ideas which continue to influence contemporary discussions about justice and politics. Although much has been written on the political philosophy of Rawls, there has not been any in-depth study focused on the implications of the ideas of Rawls for contemporary existing democracies. Drawing on some of his earlier work, the author offers a detailed exploration of ho.

Free speech is a necessary condition for the growth of knowledge and the implementation of real and rational democracy. Educational institutions play a central role in socializing individuals to function within their society. Academic freedom is the right to free speech in the context of the university and tenure, properly interpreted, is a necessary component of protecting academic freedom and free speech.

Libertarianism is an ideology which reveals its contradictions when it is implemented. The libertarian denial of the right to what Rawls calls fair quality of opportunity, especially to the right to education, would negatively impact any libertarian society in adapting to its environment. Further, a libertarian society would lead to a caste society and the domination of the political system by an elite primarily interested in protecting its own privileges, not the freedom of the masses.

The social contract tradition of political legitimacy has a long and complex history. John Rawls believed himself to be working in this tradition of Locke, Rousseau and Kant, but not that of Hobbes whose Leviathan, he remarks, "raises special problems." Rawls never specifies what these problems are but there are indeed very serious problems with Hobbes' political theory. I argue that Hobbes' theory is an ideology fashioned in a chaotic social environment where self-preservation was precarious at best. His theory is based on his belief that there were only two alternatives for political order given the human condition as he saw it at the time, chaos or absolute power. This false dichotomy was one that Rawls and most other theorists did not accept. Hobbes' theory conflicts with Rawls' conception of rights, the purpose of government, and the nature of the person. Hobbes' theory is a form of ethical foundationalism and is what Rawls calls a comprehensive doctrine unacceptable in Rawls' political liberalism.