Rawls on mutual disinterest and Hume's subjective circumstances of justice

L. Bovens

Abstract:L'A. expose la construction hypothetique de Rawls d'une societe creee par un petit nombre d'individus emplis de rationalite. La justice serait preservee par un desinteressement mutuel

Philosophy

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Complex of Theory of Rawls' Education Equity and the Criticism of Its Principle of Methodology

Liu Tongfang

2012-01-01

Educational Research

Abstract:As a principle of methodology , the theory of Rawls' education equity is based on his theory script of justice , and exists insurmountable plight of the theory. The premise of his theory is built on a pure idealistic hypothesis and the understanding of human and human nature , and it is abstract. His perspective of the theory is under the provisions of a uniform scale to promote everyone's fairness and equality , and it is one-sided ; His end-result of the theory is to pursue the maximum consensus of justice of truth on distribution by the tendency of equalitarianism , and it is Utopian. We should take critical views to the theory of Rawls' education equity , be vigilant of the complex of it and prevent the judgment which is not in accord with reality on account of blindly faith.
The Ethics of Self-respect and Mutual Respect: From the Mutual Disinterest of Rawls

SUN Xiao-ling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0257-0289.2012.01.008

2012-01-01

Abstract:Ever since the publication of Rawls magus opus Theory of Justice,his conception of mutualdisinterest,which,according to Rawls,characterizes the artificial person in the original position,hasalways been a moot point.So,we attempted in this essay to clarify the meaning of Rawls' conceptionof mutual disinterest,which finally designates the plurality of the good,as part of the circumstanceof justice.By this means,it is shown that Rawls' interpretation of mutual disinterest,which aims at arejection of egoism charge,has not only distinguished it from the self-interested assumption central tothe traditional contract theories,but also points toward an ethics of self-respect and mutual respect.Suchan ethics would not only make possible a combination of benevolence and justice,but also provides uswith a realistic rendition of Kant's realm of ends.
Maximin Justice, Sacrifice, and the Reciprocity Argument: A Pragmatic Reassessment of the Rawls/Nozick Debate

Stephen W. Ball

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800005744

1993-11-01

Utilitas

Abstract:Theories of economic justice are characteristically based on abstract ethical concerns often unrelated to practical distributive results. Two decades ago, Rawls's theory of justice began as a reaction against the alleged ‘sacrifices’ condoned by utilitarian theory. One variant of this objection is that utilitarianism permits gross inequalities, severe deprivations of individual liberty, or even the enslavement of society's least well-off individuals. There are, however, more subtle forms of the objection. In Rawls, it is often waged without any claim that utilitarianism does in fact imply such gross deprivations in actual realworld circumstances. A second variant hinges, rather, on the milder claim that utilitarianism could condone such deprivations or sacrifices in some possible world—the objection being that utilitarianism improperly makes justice contingent, or uncertain, in this way. A third, still more abstract, variant would be that utilitarianism is flawed—not because of any practical distributive result, actual or hypothetical, but in theory —due to the way it treats individuals' interests, or the ‘concept of persons’ it presupposes.
Knowledge Justice and Rawls's Theory of Justice

Huiren Bai

2020-01-01

Abstract:The public nature of knowledge makes knowledge constitute the necessary condition for every social member to pursue Rawlsian "rational life plan". The injustice of knowledge distribution has a profound impact on social justice, but the political theories of distributive justice do not include knowledge. Like most social goods, knowledge can also be produced, disseminated and acquired. Knowledge can be considered as Rawls's "primary good" and brought into the discussion of justice theory. The distributive justice of knowledge needs to be realized in an institutional framework of "the system of public knowledge".
The Political Liberalism of Rawls and The Question of Justicial Ark in Pluralistic Times

Bao Limin,Cao Ruitao

2007-01-01

Abstract:Since pluralism is for several reasons becoming a real issue after the second-world war, J. Rawls has adjusted his focus about the problem of justice in his late works-Political liberalism. Thus he has grasped the new developments in the field of political philosophy, and found a new way to solve problems, such as “Tolerating plural value systems and locating the consensus about political justice”. However Rawls’s project of political liberalism has been challenged by many scholars, and there are serious inadequacies that need to be dealt with.
The Rawlsian Critique of Utilitarianism: A Luhmannian Interpretation

Vladislav Valentinov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2786-y

IF: 6.331

2015-07-26

Journal of Business Ethics

Abstract:The present paper builds on the Rawlsian critique of utilitarianism in order to identify the moral implications of Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. While Luhmann aptly discerned the pervasive problems of the precarious system–environment relations throughout the modern society, he took moral communication to be person-centered and thus ill-equipped to deal with these problems. At the same time, the Rawlsian possibility of sacrificing fundamental liberties for the sake of economic gains not only exemplifies the Luhmannian precariousness of the relations of the economic system to its societal environment, but also shows this precariousness to be a moral problem. Thus, from the systems-theoretic perspective, the Rawlsian idea of justice denotes the moral dimension of the capacity of the societal environment to carry the economic system. More generally, the proposed complementarity between Rawls and Luhmann allows to see the precariousness of system–environment relations, for any type of social system, as a moral problem. Two implications follow. First, the morally problematic manifestations of the precarious system–environment relations are not limited to the Rawlsian case of the discrimination of the least advantaged groups but rather include a broad range of social costs and damaging effects of business on society and nature. Second, and related, the proposed systems-theoretic perspective explicates the moral value of sustainability of the economic as well as other social systems in their environment, societal and ecological alike.

business,ethics
Rawls Vs. Nozick Vs. Kant on Domestic Economic Justice

Helga Varden

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42658-7_5

2016-01-01

Abstract:Robert Nozick initiated one of the most inspired and inspiring discussions in political philosophy with his 1974 response in Anarchy, State, and Utopia to John Rawls’s 1971 account of distributive justice in A Theory of Justice. These two works have informed an enormous amount of subsequent, especially liberal, discussions of economic justice, where Nozick’s work typically functions as a resource for those defending more rightwing (libertarian) positions, whereas Rawls’s has been used to defend leftwing stances. Common to these discussions, as found in politics generally (where similar kinds of arguments frequently are used to defend right and the leftwing policies and conclusions) is that they end in rather stubborn stalemates: the right defends minimal states while the left defends more extensive states. Interesting, too, is that both Nozick and Rawls take themselves to be consistent with, inspired by, and furthering Kant’s freedom project in the development of their own Kantian theories of justice. In this chapter, I start by outlining the structures of these debates with an emphasis on the original disagreements between Nozick and Rawls. I then show how neither theory actually employed Kant’s own theory of justice, but rather drew on or out (presumed) implications of his ethical theory. In the final sections, I argue that if Nozick and Rawls had instead used Kant’s theory of justice and not his ethics, not only would their individual theories have been stronger, but also they could have found ways of overcoming the unproductive stalemates that characterize their own as well as subsequent related discussions of economic justice as we currently find them in scholarly and contemporary political debates.
On the Issue of "Social Union" of the Late Years of Rawls and His Social View

YANG Xiao-chang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-7504.2012.06.006

2012-01-01

Abstract:Some communitarianists criticize theory of justice of Rawls for its projection of individual as "a self without any restrains",which leads to a great extent the neglect of his social view and theoretic focus in his late years in academic circle: the issue of "social union".However,Rawls not only regards modern democratic society as a "socially united" society required by the social members due to cooperative urge,but also as a "socially inserted" society in which social form and social history and tradition shape the identity of its member.Against this social view,the deep reason for Rawls to propose the issue of "social union" in his late years comes from the social form of life and tradition resulted from generations of the members' collective political and practical results.
Issues Concerning Rawls

WAN Jun-ren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-7504.2007.01.002

2007-01-01

Abstract:Rawls' Principle of Justice puts forward two principles concerning justice,resulting in the change of research direction in the philosophical circles in America and Europe.Ethics becomes again the focus of philosophical study.However,his principle is also criticized,on the one hand,by liberalists from within,that is,radical liberalists;on the other hand,by those out of liberalist camp,that is,communitarianism and republicanism.This article raises issues concerning the conditions of realizing justice system ignored by Rawls from the perspective of the reality of China.
How to Justify Principles of Justice

Zhang Guoqing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/yewph-2020-0014

2017-01-01

Abstract:Abstract John Rawls assumes that in the original position, under the veil of ignorance, after bargaining amongst each other, free, equal, moral and rational persons would make a rational decision to accept the principles of justice as fairness and thus the principles are established. Critics, however, question the authenticity and validity of this justification strategy. When rational individuals take the principles of justice as an original agreement, it is not a real contract. Rawls’s conception of justice as fairness is just a personal notion, some individuals may accept it, but it is impossible to be accepted by all human beings in a real world. Therefore there is a justification/acceptance paradox of those principles which are the core of his political philosophy. So how should we justify those principles? Its answers may be provided not in the light of a philosophical justification but of a scientific one.
Rawlsian Assignments

Tom Demeulemeester,Juan S. Pereyra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.02930

2024-10-28

Abstract:We study the assignment of indivisible goods to individuals when monetary transfers are not allowed. Previous literature has mainly focused on efficiency (from both ex-ante and ex-post perspectives) and individually fair assignments. As a result, egalitarian concerns have been overlooked. We draw inspiration from the assignment of apartments in housing cooperatives, where families consider egalitarianism of assignments as a first-order requirement. Specifically, they aim to avoid situations where some families receive their most preferred apartments while others are assigned options ranked very low in their preferences. Building on Rawls' concept of fairness, we introduce the notion of Rawlsian assignment. We prove that a unique Rawlsian assignment always exists. Furthermore, the Rawlsian rule is efficient and anonymous. To illustrate our analysis, we use preference data from housing cooperatives. We show that the Rawlsian rule substantially improves, from an egalitarian perspective, both the probabilistic serial rule, and the rule currently used to assign apartments in the housing cooperatives.

Theoretical Economics
Nozick’s critique of Rawls: distribution, entitlement, and the assumptive world of A Theory of Justice

John Meadowcroft

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ccol9780521197762.011

2011-09-01

Abstract:Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) is recognised as a classic of modern political philosophy. Along with John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971), it is widely credited with breathing new life into the discipline in the second half of the twentieth century. This Companion presents a balanced and comprehensive assessment of Nozick's contribution to political philosophy. In engaging and accessible chapters, the contributors analyse Nozick's ideas from a variety of perspectives and explore neglected areas of the work such as his discussion of anarchism and his theory of utopia. Their detailed and illuminating picture of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, its impact and its enduring influence will be invaluable to students and scholars in both political philosophy and political theory.
THE HARSANYI-RAWLS DEBATE: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AS DECISION THEORY UNDER UNCERTAINTY

RAMIRO ÁVILA PERES

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2021.v44n2.rp

2021-06-01

Manuscrito

Abstract:Social decisions are often made under great uncertainty - in situations where political principles, and even standard subjective expected utility, do not apply smoothly. In the first section, we argue that the core of this problem lies in decision theory itself - it is about how to act when we do not have an adequate representation of the context of the action and of its possible consequences. Thus, we distinguish two criteria to complement decision theory under ignorance - Laplace’s principle of insufficient reason and Wald’s maximin criterion. After that, we apply this analysis to political philosophy, by contrasting Harsanyi’s and Rawls’s theories of justice, respectively based on Laplace’s principle of insufficient reason and Wald’s maximin rule - and we end up highlighting the virtues of Rawls’s principle on practical grounds (it is intuitively attractive because of its computational simplicity, so providing a salient point for convergence) - and connect this argument to our moral intuitions and social norms requiring prudence in the case of decisions made for the sake of others.
The Moral Basis of Liberal Justice Theory

GU Su

2011-01-01

Abstract:Whether there is a moral basis for liberal justice theory, is a key issue hotly debated in contemporary political philosophy. J. Rawls emphasizes his theory of justice as "free-standing" while debating with J. Habermas, which means that its justification does not rely on comprehensive moral or religious doctrines, but this does not mean that there is no moral basis. Theory of social contract and public reason are theoretical bases for justice, and respecting humans, taking human as end is its core moral basis, on which people in a democratic society form, develop and obey their overlapping consensus. It transcends concrete moral and religious beliefs, and constitutes universal and essential rules. Only when people obey supreme moral principles, and people’s sovereignty is prescribed as the universal obligation, i.e., concerning and respecting humans, can it be understood as embodies rational consensus, forms fundamental principles of justice and becomes rules obeyed by all the people.
Impartiality and relative utilitarianism

Karni, Edi,Weymark, John A.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-024-01518-1

2024-03-31

Social Choice and Welfare

Abstract:A novel axiomatization of relative utilitarianism is provided using the single-profile setting used in Harsanyi's Social Aggregation Theorem. Harsanyi's axioms are supplemented with an impartiality axiom that requires social alternative lotteries p and q to be socially indifferent when (i) two individuals have conflicting preferences for them and everybody else is indifferent and (ii) the concerned individuals' strengths of preference for p over q have the same magnitude. This axiomatization shows that equality of the social weights can be obtained in a single-profile setting and that no interprofile condition is needed to obtain profile-independent weights in a multi-profile setting.

economics,social sciences, mathematical methods
In Search of Legal Base for Global Justice:Disputes on International Meaning of Rawls' Theory of Justice

Liu Xuemei,Gu Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.0257-5833.2007.08.011

2007-01-01

Journal of Social Sciences

Abstract:There is incoherence between John Rawls' theories about domestic justice and international justice in his A Theory of Justice and Law of Peoples, this paper summarizes and comments on criticisms by some cosmopolitanists and Rawls' brief response to them.
Economics with(out) ethics? An interdisciplinary encounter between public economists and John Rawls in the 1970s

Danielle Guizzo,Carles Paré-Ogg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2023.2248321

2023-09-01

European Journal of the History of Economic Thought

Abstract:This article analyses selected interdisciplinary exchanges between analytical political philosophy and public economics in the United States during the 1970s. It focuses on three core themes in which public economists interpreted, discussed, and incorporated concepts from John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971), namely: (1) the limits and uses of utilitarianism as a useful framework for capturing social welfare; (2) the ethics of promoting justice and fairness; and (3) how to promote redistribution through taxation. An exploration of published and unpublished sources (personal correspondence, articles, and books) following the publication of Rawls's magnum opus reveals an intense engagement from public economists with key Rawlsian concepts in the 1970s, in particular the "maximin." Whilst such exchange offered important thematic inspiration for making the field more ethically driven and engaged with justice-related issues, generating policy discussions on promoting redistribution through optimal taxation, their exchange remained within the economist's formal toolbox and way of reasoning. Political philosophy made public economics to become ethical without challenging the core epistemic-methodological foundations of economic reasoning.

economics,history of social sciences
Duty, Constructivism, Reason ——A Comparative Study on Rawls and Kant

李志江

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-7071.2004.03.015

2004-01-01

Abstract:Rawls' theory of justice was strongly influenced by Kant. At one time he wrote that his theory 'is highly Kantian in nature'. On the other hand, he made many amendments and restriction on concepts and ideas coming from Kant. So there were differences between the two philosophers. Kant thought that duty originates from reason, while Rawls thought that it originates from contracts. Kant argued for moral constructivism, while Rawls argued for political constructivism. Kant held the reason to be monistic, while Rawls held the reason to be plural.
John Rawls, Godfather of Bioethics

Bruce Jennings

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1306

Abstract:At a time when ethical and political philosophy were thought passé, John Rawls gave serious attention to ethical questions, providing them with a renewed academic legitimacy. This helped fields of practical ethics such as bioethics become established in higher education and in public affairs. This essay addresses the influence Rawls has had on bioethics through both the style and the substance of his ethical argumentation. The essay argues that his distinctive rhetorical strategy and tone attempted to rein in the scope of normative commitments in order to make an equilibrium between refined understandings of freedom and equality possible and sustainable. Bioethics has been strongly influenced by this approach to maintaining social stability in a liberal society that has become highly stratified and culturally diverse. Bioethics continues to echo the Rawlsian call for a calmly reasoned political life but finds that call increasingly difficult to answer.
Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making: A challenge to Rawlsian Idea of Justice

Mahnaz Ajaz,Naveed Ahmad Mir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.55031/mshare.2021.39.lw.8

2021-12-25

Abstract:‘Justice’ is a simple term, yet much more complex in its understanding. With the evolution of the humankind, different jurists have defined ‘Justice’, the way they perceived it. And for the creation of the ‘just society’ various theories have been propounded. One such theory propounded by John Rawls, in his classical work “A Theory of Justice”. However, society being dynamic in nature, there has been many challenges to his idea of ‘just society’ or his theory of ‘justice’ in the late modernity (or liquid modernity). This paper lays down the proposition that, introduction of Artificial Intelligence into the judicial system defeats the purpose of justice. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyse the applicability of Rawlsian idea of ‘just society’ and ‘justice’ in the late modernity; specially focusing on the use of artificial intelligence.

Rawls on mutual disinterest and Hume's subjective circumstances of justice

The Complex of Theory of Rawls' Education Equity and the Criticism of Its Principle of Methodology

The Ethics of Self-respect and Mutual Respect: From the Mutual Disinterest of Rawls

Maximin Justice, Sacrifice, and the Reciprocity Argument: A Pragmatic Reassessment of the Rawls/Nozick Debate

Knowledge Justice and Rawls's Theory of Justice

The Political Liberalism of Rawls and The Question of Justicial Ark in Pluralistic Times

The Rawlsian Critique of Utilitarianism: A Luhmannian Interpretation

Rawls Vs. Nozick Vs. Kant on Domestic Economic Justice

On the Issue of "Social Union" of the Late Years of Rawls and His Social View

Issues Concerning Rawls

How to Justify Principles of Justice

Rawlsian Assignments

Nozick’s critique of Rawls: distribution, entitlement, and the assumptive world of A Theory of Justice

THE HARSANYI-RAWLS DEBATE: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AS DECISION THEORY UNDER UNCERTAINTY

The Moral Basis of Liberal Justice Theory

Impartiality and relative utilitarianism

In Search of Legal Base for Global Justice:Disputes on International Meaning of Rawls' Theory of Justice

Economics with(out) ethics? An interdisciplinary encounter between public economists and John Rawls in the 1970s

Duty, Constructivism, Reason ——A Comparative Study on Rawls and Kant

John Rawls, Godfather of Bioethics

Artificial Intelligence in Decision Making: A challenge to Rawlsian Idea of Justice