John Rawls, A Brief Inquiry into the Meaning of Sin & Faith, With “On My Religion”. Ed. Thomas Nagel

Society ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 276-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Roseneck

This book shows under which conditions religious reasoning for generally binding norms can be legitimately introduced into democratic decision-making, even if societies are religiously diverse and pluralistic. To this end, the philosophical and social scientific discussion on this subject, which is still continuing today, is first systematically reviewed and critically discussed, starting with New Atheism, continuing with John Rawls and Thomas Nagel and ending with contemporary contributions by Jürgen Habermas. Subsequently, the book adopts the standpoint that the evaluation of religiously founded claims in democracy can only be determined by their practical consequences, thus leaving broad scope for their integration.


2019 ◽  
pp. 66-83
Author(s):  
Dan Moller

This chapter argues that private property constrains what the state may do. Figures like John Rawls, Thomas Nagel, and G. A. Cohen have advanced views according to which ownership is not a consideration that significantly hems in the content of just institutions. But this chapter shows that private property has independent weight that must be acknowledged in organizing a just society. A social contract that ignores the independent moral importance of private property is not one that should command our respect. This raises the question of whether it is ever permissible to take someone’s property by force, without which we would arguably be left with anarchy. The answer sketched relies on an anti-free-rider principle that permits us to compel people to contribute to projects we cannot reasonably forgo, which people benefit from and could opt out of, and which they may otherwise free-ride on.


2020 ◽  
pp. 153-174
Author(s):  
Kristi A. Olson

Chapter 9 invokes the solidarity solution to explain why some taxes are morally permissible while others are not. Take, for example, the endowment tax. Unlike the traditional earnings tax based on the individual’s actual income, the endowment tax is based on the individual’s maximum potential income. Although, intuitively, the endowment tax impermissibly interferes with freedom of occupational choice, it is difficult to explain why it impermissibly interferes while other taxes do not. After showing that the well-known attempts of John Rawls, Liam Murphy, and Thomas Nagel fail, chapter 9 puts forward a new solution: the endowment tax is impermissible not because it forecloses more options but rather because it forecloses options to which individuals have a stronger moral claim. The solidarity solution identifies these options.


2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (48) ◽  
pp. 85-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Feres Júnior ◽  
Luiz Augusto Campos

O presente artigo examina a hipótese de que a teoria política e moral do liberalismo igualitário serve de justificação para políticas de ação afirmativa de recorte étnico-racial, hipótese essa que tem sido assumida como verdadeira por acadêmicos e importantes operadores do direito em nosso país. Buscamos estabelecer como autores fundamentais do liberalismo igualitário, como John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel e Robert Taylor, trataram a questão das políticas de discriminação positiva. O método usado é a interpretação textual, tomando cuidado de trabalhar o mais próximo possível da linguagem e dos conceitos nos próprios textos dos autores e cobrindo a evolução do tema na obra de cada um, particularmente na de Rawls. Pretendemos mostrar que há uma gradação de opiniões em relação à questão, que vai da defesa à rejeição de tais políticas, passando por posições intermediárias que justificam algumas modalidades de ação afirmativa, mas não outras. Portanto, não há uma relação unívoca entre a teoria política e moral do liberalismo igualitário e a justificação de políticas de ação afirmativa de recorte étnico-racial, a despeito do senso comum e do fato de teóricos do liberalismo igualitário e defensores da ação afirmativa partilharem o mesmo lugar no espectro político das democracias liberais.


Elements ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Wendel

The response of affluent individuals and countries to the extremes of global poverty in today's world is in dire need of reconsideration. While political philosophies such as John Rawls and Thomas Nagel argue that obligations of justice should not extend beyond national boundaries, other such as Thomas Pogge and Peter Singer emphasize that increased global interdependence has made national boundaries irrelevant for matters of morality and justice. Instead, affluent individuals must undertake a new moral mindset when considering the issue of global poverty, and a new, moderate, moral cosmopolitan theory for justice should be established in order to change the state of poverty in our world radically.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-195

Fairness in income distribution is a factor that both motivates employees and contributes to maintaining social stability. In Vietnam, fair income distribution has been studied from various perspectives. In this article, through the analysis and synthesis of related documents and evidence, and from the perspective of economic philosophy, the author applies John Rawls’s Theory of Justice as Fairness to analyze some issues arising from the implementation of the state’s role in ensuring fair income distribution from 1986 to present. These are unifying the perception of fairness in income distribution; solving the relationship between economic efficiency and social equality; ensuring benefits for the least-privileged people in society; and controlling income. On that basis, the author makes some recommendations to enhance the state’s role in ensuring fair income distribution in Vietnam. Received 11thNovember 2019; Revised 10thApril 2020; Accepted 20th April 2020


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Xavier Scott

This paper examines the transition in political philosophy between the medieval and early-modern periods by focusing on the emergence of sovereignty doctrine. Scholars such as Charles Taylor and John Rawls have focused on the ability of modern-states to overcome conflicts between different religious confessionals. In contrast, this paper seeks to examine some of the peace-promoting features of Latin-Christendom and some of the conflict-promoting features of modern-secular states. The Christian universalism of the medieval period is contrasted with the colonial ventures promoted by the Peace of Westphalia. This paper’s goal is not to argue that secularism is in fact more violent than religion. Rather, it seeks to demonstrate the major role that religion played in early modern philosophy and the development of sovereignty doctrine. It argues against the view that the modern, secular state is capable of neutrality vis-à-vis religion, and also combats the view that the secular nature of modern international law means that it is neutral to the different beliefs and values of the world’s peoples. These observations emphasize the ways in which state power and legitimacy are at the heart of the secular turn in political philosophy. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document