Aristotle, Kant and Rawls on Moral Motivation in a Just Society

1980 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 385-393 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M. DeLue
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Moral Motivation ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Mutual Respect ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Standards Of Conduct ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Just Society

John Rawls considers his Theory of Justice to be in the Kantian tradition. Generally there seems to be agreement among Rawls' critics that at least with respect to the procedural formulation of the principles of justice, it is difficult to call Rawls' position Kantian. In this article I will argue that Rawls' Kantianism is best understood as providing a motive source for acting upon known just standards of conduct. In this regard Rawls can be read as synthesizing aspects of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and Kant's moral reasoning to provide the rationale to explain why an individual who knows what is morally correct conduct in a given situation, makes such knowledge the source of his action. Demonstrating the Aristotelean roots of Rawls' Kantianism with respect to the problem of motivation for just conduct helps one understand how Kant's moral theory can be viewed in Rawls' words not as a “morality of austere command but … [as] … an ethic of mutual respect and self esteem” (1971, p. 251). Secondly, this view of Kant provides the basis for understanding the anti-corporatist aspect of Rawls' political theory that my reading of Rawls makes necessary.

Rawlsian Constructivism in Moral Theory

1987 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
David O. Brink
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Moral Theory ◽  
Decision Procedure ◽  
Reflective Equilibrium ◽  
Moral Epistemology ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Since his article, ‘Outline for a Decision Procedure in Ethics,’ John Rawls has advocated a coherentist moral epistemology according to which moral and political theories are justified on the basis of their coherence with our other beliefs, both moral and nonmoral (1951: 56, 61). A moral theory which is maximally coherent with our other beliefs is in a state which Rawls calls ‘reflective equilibrium’ (1971: 20). In A Theory of Justice Rawls advanced two principles of justice and claimed that they are in reflective equilibrium. He defended this claim by appeal to a hypothetical contract; he argued that parties in a position satisfying certain informational and motivational criteria, which he called ‘the original position,’ would choose the following two principles of justice to govern the basic structure of their society.

scholarly journals POLÍTICAS PÚBLICAS EDUCACIONAIS À LUZ DA TEORIA DA JUSTIÇA DE JOHN RAWLS

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 449
Author(s):  
Rafael Soares de Lima ◽  
Murilo Chaves Vilarinho
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Exploratory Research ◽  
Equitable Distribution ◽  
National Education ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Just Society

Segundo John Rawls, uma sociedade justa é aquela em que há garantia da liberdade individual e da promoção e distribuição equitativa de oportunidades e recursos. O presente artigo objetiva abordar os princípios da justiça como equidade, em Rawls, enquanto instrumentos para a reflexão acerca das políticas públicas educacionais no Brasil, em especial o Plano Nacional de Educação (PNE). Metodologicamente, o estudo se baseia em pesquisa exploratória, bibliográfica e análise documental. Como resultados,  identifica correlações entre os objetivos do PNE, a manutenção das liberdades iguais e a maximização das expectativas dos menos favorecidos, bem como limitações em relação à distribuição equitativa de oportunidades de ocupação, no âmbito da estrutura básica da sociedade, com atenção especial para a educação.EDUCATION POLICY ACCORDING TO JOHN RAWLS’ THEORY OF JUSTICEAbstract According to John Rawls, a just society is one in which individual freedom and the promotion and equitable distribution of opportunities and resources are guaranteed. The present article aims to address the principles of justice as equity, in Rawls, as instruments for reflection on educational public policies in Brazil, especially the National Education Plan (PNE). Methodologically, the study is based on exploratory research, literature and document analysis. As a result, it identifies correlations between the objectives of the PNE, the maintenance of equal freedoms and the maximization of the expectations of the less fortunate, as well as limitations regarding the equitable distribution of occupation opportunities, within the basic structure of society, with special attention to the education.Keywords: Education. Public Policies. Theory of Justice. John Rawls.

John Rawls and the Task of Political Philosophy

2009 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Weithman
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Moral Motivation ◽  
The Political ◽  
Real Possibility ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
History Of ◽  
Just Society

AbstractIn this article, I sketch a reading of Rawls's work that ties together many of the features that distinguish it from the work of other authors commemorated in this issue. On this reading, the two world wars and the Holocaust pressed the question of whether a just liberal democracy is possible. Seeking to defend reasonable faith in that possibility, Rawls developed a theory of justice for an ideally just liberal democracy. He argued that such a society is a “real possibility” because, given reasonable psychological assumptions, the basic institutions of a just society would engender the moral support of its citizens. In doing so, Rawls challenged alternative accounts of moral motivation that enjoyed some currency in the analytic philosophy of the time. The interpretation of Rawls's work defended here therefore locates him in the philosophical as well as the political history of the twentieth century.

Justice as Fairness: For Groups?

1975 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 607-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vernon Van Dyke
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Homogeneous State ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Almost All

In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls assumes that the principles of justice are for individuals in a society, and in general he assumes that the society is an ethnically homogeneous state. He thus follows the tradition associated with the dominant form of the social contract theory, which focuses on the individual and the state. His assumptions neglect the fact that almost all states are ethnically plural or heterogeneous, and that many of them confer special status and rights on ethnic groups as collective entities; for example, many of them confer special status and rights on indigenous groups, on groups disadvantaged by prior discrimination, and on minorities and other groups conceded a right to survive as distinct cultural entities. Status and rights for groups necessarily mean differentiation among individuals depending on their membership; and this in turn means that a theory of justice that focuses on the individual and neglects the group both fails to account for existing practices and fails to give guidance where the practices are at issue.

Introduction

John Rawls ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 53-60
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Real World ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Practice ◽  
The World ◽  
Ideal Standards ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The Ideal

What is the relation between political theory and political practice? In what ways can political philosophy help people to address real injustices in the world? John Rawls argues that an important role of political philosophy is to identify the ideal standards of justice at which we should aim in political practice. Other philosophers challenge this approach, arguing that Rawls’s idealizations are not useful as a guide for action or, worse, that they are an impediment to addressing actual injustices in the world. They argue, instead, that political philosophy ought to be focused on theorizing about the elimination of existing injustice. Still others argue that principles of justice should be identified without any constraint concerning the possibility of implementation or regulation in the real world at all....

Rawlsian Affirmative Action

1998 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Robert Allen
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Remedial Measures ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Rational Person ◽  
Social Contracts ◽  
Primary Goods ◽  
Just Society

In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls presents a method of determining how a just society would allocate its "primary goods"-that is, those things any rational person would desire, such as opportunities, liberties, rights, wealth, and the bases of self-respect. Rawls' method of adopting the "original position" is supposed to yield a "fair" way of distributing such goods. A just society would also have the need (unmet in the above work) to determine how the victims of injustice ought to be compensated, since history suggests that social contracts are likely to be violated. This paper is an attempt to determine the remedial measures that would be selected using Rawls' method. I contend that only two of the three most widely used "affirmative action" policies would be selected from the original position. I also sketch another compensatory policy that would pass Rawls' fairness test.

Conclusion

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-174
Author(s):  
Timothy Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Interpersonal Relationships ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Fair Share ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Economic Fairness ◽  
Children's Interests ◽  
Good Environment

The central arguments of this book have been that children are owed a good environment in which to grow up and that adults are owed the stable and supported right to care for children if they so desire. In Part I, I explored how to conceptualize children’s justice and how to measure whether children’s interests are being met by their society. I showed why children’s interests cannot be understood in terms of holding a set of resources, even if resources are understood in a very broad sense. When the subject of justice is understood to be adults, then it makes sense that the role of principles of justice simply be giving each person their fair share. This was the perspective taken by the two most influential liberal thinkers of the last century, John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. I suggested their approach cannot cope with the needs of children, since children might have a fair share of economic resources yet grow up socialized into beliefs, values and practices that are harmful to their current and future flourishing. A theory of justice must, therefore, take holistic account of the various ways in which upbringing might affect a person’s life, thus looking at its effects on children’s well-being. To meet this challenge, I offered an objective list account of children’s well-being which suggested that this is principally driven by the quality of their relationships with others. This theoretical shift implies a reconceptualization of what justice is about. Instead of justice being understood primarily as economic fairness, it must be seen as fundamentally about creating a society with norms and practice which foster flourishing interpersonal relationships, with a particular concern for the least advantaged children whose interests must be given priority....

Ideal and Nonideal Theory in Political Philosophy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Thompson
Keyword(s):  
John Rawls ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Comparative Judgment ◽  
Ideal Theory ◽  
Nonideal Theory ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Status ◽  
Just Society ◽  
Methodological Concern ◽  
The Many

The distinction between ideal and nonideal theory is an important methodological concern in contemporary political theory. At issue is the extent to which political theorizing is a practical endeavor and, consequently, the extent to which real-world facts should either be factored into political theorizing or else be assumed away. The distinction between ideal theory and nonideal theory was first introduced by John Rawls in his classic A Theory of Justice. Rawls’s ideal theory is an account of the society we should aim for, given certain facts about human nature and possible social institutions, and involves two central assumptions. First, it assumes full compliance of relevant agents with the demands of justice. Second, it assumes that historical and natural conditions of society are reasonably favorable. These two assumptions are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for his ideal theory. For Rawls, nonideal theory primarily addresses the question of how the ideal might be achieved in practical, permissible steps, from the actual, partially just society we occupy. The account of ideal and nonideal theory advanced by Rawls has been subject to criticism from different directions. Amartya Sen accepts Rawls’s distinction between ideal and nonideal theory but argues that Rawlsian-style nonideal theory is too ideal. Given the many and severe injustices we face we do not need to know what ideal (or “transcendental”) justice looks like; our focus should not be on how to transition toward this ideal. Instead, the advancement of justice requires a comparative judgment which ranks possible policies in terms of being more or less just than the status quo. G. A. Cohen, by contrast, argues that Rawlsian-style ideal theory is not really ideal theory as such, but instead principles for regulating society. Our beliefs about normative principles should, ultimately, be insensitive to matters of empirical fact; genuine ideal theory is a form of moral epistemology (an exercise of identifying normative truths).

Rawlsian Justice and the Financing of the National Health Service

1976 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudine McCreadie
Keyword(s):  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
National Health ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Level Of Care ◽  
Advisory Panel ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Rawlsian Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice

ABSTRACTJohn Rawls' ATheory of Justicewas published in Britain in 1972. The summation of many years' work by Professor Rawls, it has stimulated widespread admiration and criticism. In this article Rawls' theory is summarized briefly together with some of the major criticisms that have been made of it. An attempt is then made to apply one of Rawls' principles of justice to the question of health services financing, using as a case study the recommendations of an advisory panel of the British Medical Association, which reported in 1970. These recommendations involved extending the private sector in medical care, on the argument that the flow of resources to the National Health Service would increase and, despite possible greater inequalities, result in an improvement in the level of care for all. Judged by the Rawlsian principle, these recommendations are not found likely to represent a just solution to the question of health service financing.

Morality, Rational Choice, and Semantic Representation

1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Gauthier
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
New Venture ◽  
Justice As Fairness ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Historical Antecedents

(1) In his recent paper, “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” John Rawls makes use of a footnote to disown what to many readers must have seemed one of the most striking and original underlying ideas of his theory of justice, that it “is a part, perhaps the most significant part, of the theory of rational choice.” That Rawls should issue this disclaimer indicates, at least in my view, that he has a much clearer understanding of his theory, and its relationship to rational choice than he did at the time that he wrote A Theory of Justice. As I note in Morals by Agreement (pp.4–5), Rawls does not show that principles of justice are principles of rational choice. Hence, in appropriating the idea, I can claim diat I am undertaking a pioneering enterprise. No doubt Thomas Hobbes would have undertaken it had the resources of the theory of rational choice been at his disposal, but I do not intend to pursue counterfactuals in a search for historical antecedents. Moral theory as rational choice theory is, I claim, a new venture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document