John Rawls Puns

currently reading about john rawls’ theory of justice and it got me thinking...we don't need imagination we just need a shit ton of amnesiacs, right?

To anyone who is familiar with Pashinyan's writings, did he espouse views in support of liberal thinker John Rawls social contract and veil of ignorance theories?

I have started reading Rawls recently and wanted to learn more about his philosophy through other people's opinions as well. :)

I took an environmental philosophy class this semester and one of the philosophers that was presented was John Rawls. I found myself being really interested in his philosophy and wanted to start reading a bit more into him. The thing is that I don’t where to start. I wanted to get A Theory Of Justice but I’ve been told that it’s a very hard read. I never read any true philosophy books besides The Prophet from Khalil Gibran(I don’t even know if it can be considered as such. So any suggestions?

Edit: I forgot to mention that I know the basis of his theory and I did read online about it but I never dwelled too deep

Hello fellow humans,

as a SocDem (partially leaning Social Liberal) I want to broaden my horizon a bit and found a few days ago John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" (translated into German, printed by Suhrkamp and part of their "Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft" series). I only heard of Rawls a bit and the title drew my attention.

What are your opinions on it and do you consider it a good/interesting read on the topic?

Would you recommend it?

Please no big spoliers, haven't fully read it yet and have to make up my mind.

It could be my imagination it but economic justice seems to always have a consequence. It's like a zero sum game between two things that are not necessarily related.

This question came up during my environmental philosophy class but instead of Rawls, we were talking about Kant. Since I recently started to read about Rawls' philosophy I was wondering his answer to the question.

EDIT: Forgot to add: Would he consider them to be just or not?

Mnewbie

I want to read a bit on liberalism and was wondering which of these two philosophers is easier to understand or explain. I know I can start with either but I was just wondering out of curiosity.

My liberal friend keeps talking about John Rawls and how it is the answer going forward (he says that because he does not believe there is any way to surpass capitalism, only to tame it. I know capital realism)

Anyway, since I've only read like 5 pages of his 500 page book, I have no clue what John's critiques and propositions are. Does he advance leftist ideals in any way? Does he criticize any socialist ideas? Can we use him to expand our perspective? Is he helpful in any way or is he just a liberal who desperately wants to reform capitalism even though that would be impossible?

Thanks for any help!!!

So recently I listened to an old episode of podcast of "Philosophize This" and the episode on John Rawls and his work The Theory of Justice. I was really fascinated on his theory. He praises the liberal democracy, freedom and equality. With many life examples he criticizes laissez-faire capitalism being unfair and not that equal and socialism that it may achieves too much equality but at the same time it ignores freedom. He also introduces a progressive income tax. Do you think he is closer to social democracy than social liberalism? What's your opinion?

I stumbled across a theory called "Property-Owning Democracy", first coined by English Nobel economist James Meade before being expanded upon by American philosopher John Rawls. I'm having a hard time discerning any meaningful difference between this "property-owning democracy" and distributism. Does anyone know of any links between ChesterBelloc and Meade/Rawls? I'm not sure if Rawls has a particularly large following, but if he does might they be natural allies in economic theory? Is there a key difference between POD and Distr that I am missing?

John Rawls was a philosopher who came up with an ethical system based around the idea of entering a hypothetical "Pre-birth state".

Essentially, John Rawls argued that the best way to consider whether a society was designed in an ethical way would be to imagine you were in a state of existence before birth, and with the idea that you would be born into this society after it had been designed. He then asked, what kind of society would you design if you were in this state? According to Rawls, the majority of people would likely design a society that gives everyone a basic standard of living, in order to ensure that the life that we were born into would meet at least this standard.

Open Individualism seems to be the natural extension to that; if true, then we are all right now in this "pre-birth" state, and we can perform Rawls' thought experiment in real time. I would make a slight adjustment, or perhaps clarification, to this where I would argue that all animals with a brain, not just Homo Sapiens, certainly all chordates, are part of this same experiment.

The amount of attention Rawls receives online and in formal debates seems rather low in comparison to what I have seen said of him ( Bill Clinton called him the most important political philosopher of the century i believe) and Nozick, do their philosophies deserve more consideration, or are they functionally irrelevant in discussions today?

Im looking for a text or video where he explains this. I know he said in a clip i watched that the envy or the mechanism of Ressentiment described by Rousseau is why a liberal theory of justice can never work, because if all the inequalitites are "justified" then one would have to accept that the other person really is "better" than me in some regard. In the system we have now we can at least blame the blind and stupid market forces for our failures. If one were to introduce envy to Rawls theory it would explode.

Would really appreciate if you could find where he says this. Thank you!

I am struggling to understand the actual Economical inclination of Rawls. Can anyone provide me with adequate information or some knowledgeable links?

Hello fellow colleagues,

as a SocDem I want to broaden my horizon a bit and found a few days ago John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" (translated into German, printed by Suhrkamp and part of their "Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft" series). I only heard of Rawls a bit and the title drew my attention.

What are your opinions on it and do you consider it a good/interesting read on the topic?

Would you recommend it?

Please no big spoliers, haven't fully read it yet and have to make up my mind.