scholarly journals Charles Taylor’s Critique of the Idea of Distributive Justice in Contemporary Political Philosophy

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-136
Author(s):  
Iqbal Hasanuddin
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Human Being ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Basic Assumptions ◽  
Human Good ◽  
Do So

Charles Taylor is a Canadian Philosopher who is very critical to the idea of distributive justice from the liberal thinkers. One of them is John Rawls, especially his thought in A Theory of Justice. Then, this paper will examine Taylor’s view on that idea. To do so, I analyze Taylor’s Philosophy and the Human Sciences. Following Aristotelian way of thinking on the importance of society to achieve the human good, Taylor criticizes some basic assumptions which support the liberal idea of justice. For him, the emergence of the idea of distributive justice is caused by the failure of the modern thinkers to understand the essence of human being and its relation to society.

5. Aristotle

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Burns
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Nicomachean Ethics ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Philosophy Today ◽  
Starting Point

This chapter examines the argument of Aristotle's Politics in relation to the theory of justice that he articulates in his Nicomachean Ethics. It first provides a biography of Aristotle before discussing his view of human nature, the starting point for understanding his views on both ethics and politics. In particular, it considers what Aristotle means when he describes man as a ‘social and political animal’ (zoon politikon). It goes on to explore the theory of justice developed in Aristotle's Ethics, focusing on the notions of proportional and arithmetical equality. It also analyses the two areas of social life in which the concept of justice has a practical application: the spheres of rectificatory and distributive justice. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the continuing relevance of Aristotle for political philosophy today, especially for the debate between John Rawls and his communitarian critics.

On the Relevance of Political Philosophy to Business Ethics

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Moriarty
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Business Ethics ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
The Difference

Abstract:The central problems of political philosophy (e.g., legitimate authority, distributive justice) mirror the central problems of business ethics. The question naturally arises: should political theories be applied to problems in business ethics? If a version of egalitarianism is the correct theory of justice for states, for example, does it follow that it is the correct theory of justice for businesses? If states should be democratically governed by their citizens, should businesses be democratically managed by their employees? Most theorists who have considered these questions, including John Rawls in Political Liberalism, and Robert Phillips and Joshua Margolis in a 1999 article, have said “no.” They claim that states and businesses are different kinds of entities, and hence require different theories of justice. I challenge this claim. While businesses differ from states, the difference is one of degree, not one of kind. Business ethics has much to learn from political philosophy.

From Crusades to Colonization: Violence in Secular and Religious Political Theory

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Xavier Scott
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
State Power ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Medieval Period ◽  
Beliefs And Values

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. 

La Idea de “Razón Publica” (y su Revisión) en el Último Rawls

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 5-31
Author(s):  
Fernando Aranda Fraga ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Public Good ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
The Political ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Key Topics ◽  
Political Philosopher

In 1993 John Rawls published his main and longest work since 1971, where he had published his reknowned A Theory of Justice, book that made him famous as the greatest political philosopher of the century. We are referring to Political Liberalism, a summary of his writings of the 80’s and the first half of the 90’s, where he attempts to answer the critics of his intellectual partners, communitarian philosophers. One of the key topics in this book is the issue of “public reason”, whose object is nothing else than public good, and on which the principles and proceedings of justice are to be applied. The book was so important for the political philosophy of the time that in 1997 Rawls had to go through the 1993 edition, becoming this new one the last relevant writing published before the death of the Harvard philosopher in November 2002.

Justice: John Rawls Vs. The Tradition of Political Philosophy

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 648-662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Bloom
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Review Essay ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
State Of Nature ◽  
Adequate Understanding

A critical review essay of A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, focusing on his attempt to ground radical egalitarian democracy on a social contract. Rawls tries to construct a new theory of justice with the help of the old state of nature theorists. The reviewer investigates whether this effort is successful and whether Rawls possesses an adequate understanding of the philosophers from whom he draws his inspiration.

scholarly journals Individual morality and the morality of institutions

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Scanlon
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Moral Standards ◽  
The Relationship

This paper discusses the relationship between moral philosophy and political philosophy. It holds that political philosophy in some way is part of moral philosophy as the former deals with the content of moral standards governing the relations between individuals and institutions. That would be the purpose of the ?morality of institutions?, while the so-called "individual morality" would inform the standards applicable to individuals. On the basis of a conception of individual morality as it relates to contractualism and a discussion of the morality of institutions that closely follows John Rawls? theory of justice, the paper addresses the question of the foundations of the obligation to comply with institution-defined standards that are directed towards individuals. At the end, it focuses in particular on the difficulty of rationalizing that obligation in the case of unjust institutions.

scholarly journals Evolución, Rupturas y Contramarchas en el Constructivismo Kantiano de John Rawls

2008 ◽  
Vol 16 (31) ◽  
pp. 103-125
Author(s):  
Fernando Aranda Fraga ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
John Dewey ◽  
The Political ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Moral Constructivism ◽  
The Moment

Starting in a paper where he defines his constructivist notion of morality (1980), Rawls begins - at least explicitly - to grow apart from Kant, one of his major mentors up to the moment, especially regarding that first original support given in A Theory of Justice. At the same time, he reveals himself as sympathizing with the political philosophy of John Dewey. In order to accomplish this microproject where he makes explicit the changes affecting his theory, he resorts to a reasoning based on the supposedly variants that, according to Rawls, are present in constructivism. Out of this new version of moral constructivism, he begins drifting apart from the rigorous Kantianism the first community voices had began to criticize in him in the 70’s.

Need for a Shot of Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-50
Author(s):  
Ali Mehdi
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Child Survival ◽  
Equality Of Opportunity ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Child Deaths ◽  
Just Society ◽  
Breaking Work

Given the backlash against the politics and practice of social justice, this chapter provides a justification for an engagement with the proactive debate in political philosophy on ‘equalisandum’—what is to be equalized across individuals in a just society—since the publication of John Rawls’ path-breaking work, A Theory of Justice, in 1971. Since injustice faced by children is the biggest blot on the promise of equality of opportunity, it makes a case for anchoring the discussion of equalisandum in the context of child survival, in India. Millions of children continue to lack the opportunity to even survive within the first five years of birth, and India has recorded not only the highest number of child deaths for decades, but also some of the worst forms of injustice. The chapter ends with a brief discussion on why Amartya Sen’s capability metric is preferable vis-à-vis its Rawlsian and resourcist counterparts, both conceptually and contextually.

The “Focusing Illusion” of Rawlsian Ideal Theory

John Rawls ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 61-72
Author(s):  
Colin Farrelly
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Ideal Theory ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Original Theory ◽  
Equality Of Opportunities ◽  
Focusing Illusion

In A Theory of Justice John Rawls constructed and defended an abstract account of distributive justice founded upon hypothetical theoretical devices like the original position and veil of ignorance, the principle of maximin, and conceptual analyses of equality of opportunities. Such a methodology places a premium on abstract hypotheticals (vs. the actual history of injustice), and idealizations that involve making claims that are actually false, in order to simplify an argument. This chapter critically examines the idealizations employed by Rawls’s original theory of justice. It argues that Rawlsian ideal theory is inherently flawed because Rawls’s idealizations make our normative theorizing prone to the valuation distortions that arise in what psychologists call a “focusing illusion.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document