Name: A theory of justice
ISBN: 9780674000780

A theory of justice

The principles of justice Rawls set forth in this book are those that free and rational people would accept in an initial position of equality. In this hypothetical situation, which corresponds to the state of nature in social contract theory, no one knows his or her place in society; his or her class position or social status; his or her fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities; his or her intelligence, strength, and the like; or even his or her conception of the good. Thus, deliberating behind a veil of ignorance, people determine their rights and duties. The first section of A Theory of Justice addresses objections to the theory and discusses alternative positions, especially utilitarianism. Rawls then applies his theory to the philosophical basis of constitutional liberties, the problem of distributive justice, and the grounds and limits of political duty and obligation. He includes here a discussion of civil disobedience and conscientious objection. Finally, he connects his theory of justice with a doctrine of the good and of moral development. This enables him to formulate a conception of society as a social union of social unions, and to use his theory of justice to explain the values of community. Since its first appearance in 1971, A Theory of Justice has been continuously taught and debated, and translated into twenty-four languages.

What Hacker News says

crazygringoMay 2026

Yes, that is absolutely the mainstream position. See John Rawls "A Theory of Justice" which is the basis for a lot of applied ethics today.

And "sufficiently democratic" basically means freedom of political speech, adult citizens can vote, representatives are chosen by majority rule, elections are fairly conducted and not rigged, and laws are passed by majority rule.

Obviously you can always quibble over details such as unicameral vs bicameral legislatures, single-member district vs. multi-member district representation, gerrymandering, judicial review, and so forth.

But if people are allowed to freely debate and the franchise is universal and elections are free and fair and elections and decisions are based on majority rule, then those are the basic conditions. So the US and France and the UK are sufficiently democratic; Russia and Iran and China are not (despite holding elections).

thread

wannabebaristaFeb 2025

In undergrad, reading these two books really changed my outlook. I went in skeptical and a little conspiratorial and these helped bring me closer to reality and even a little hopeful.

- The Cost of Rights (1999) by Stephen Holmes and Cass Sunstein

- A Theory of Justice (1971) by John Rawls

thread

Karrot_KreamJan 2023

I wasn't being glib. I think the observation that liberal courts often favor richer entities is true. The idea that bourgeoisie capital relations need to be suppressed for true justice to occur isn't that hard to believe. The problem when justice systems try to seek some form of restitution based on an unaccountable definition of harm is a consequence. I'm of the opinion that justice requires some form of agreed standard, norms should be left up to discretion as little as possible.

If you're interested in why the idea of harms and complete community based justice can have unintended side effects, I highly recommend reading Rawls (Theory of Justice.) A really fun essay in this vein that I enjoy is Joreen's Tyranny of the Structureless if you're not familiar with it already.

thread

r_hoods_ghostNov 2022

John Rawls: A theory of justice. It's attempt to derive a theory of justice (obv.) using methods borrowed from analytic philosophy was hugely influential. Whether you agree with Rawls' conclusions or not it's a brilliant, meticulously argued book, albeit incredibly dense.

thread

armchairhackerJun 2021

Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair.

But moreover, intelligence is too broad to rank. There's STEAM intelligence, which is what most people consider "intelligence". But there's also emotional intelligence, "quick-thinking" intelligence, "street smarts", etc. and even STEAM is kind of broad. So when you say meritocracy, do you mean that someone who's very analytical, but has no empathy or emotional understanding whatsoever, should rule the world?

I think an ideal society would be more in line with John Rawls' philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice).

thread

mumblemumbleJan 2021

In a nutshell, one of the bedrock ideas of liberal society is that government officials and governments are not the same thing. We permit the government to do some things that individuals are not permitted to do, out of necessity, because we have yet to construct a society that eliminates the need for certain ostensibly necessary evils. We find that delegating those responsibilities to a corporate body that is largely (if imperfectly) answerable to the population as a whole for its actions tends to result in better outcomes than any other alternative that's been tried. The actual execution of those responsibilities then gets sub-delegated out to individuals, but they are supposed to only be permitted to do so when lawfully acting on behalf of the government. Again, out of necessity. While it's not awesome, anything else anyone has tried so far has ended up working out even worse.

As individuals acting on their own behalf, though, nobody should be considered above the norms of civil society. By definition - if it didn't work that way, society would not be civil.

(I'd highly recommend reading both A Theory of Justice by John Rawls and Anarchy, State and Utopia by Robert Nozick for two different but equally thoughtful treatments of this sort of thing.)

thread