Only an academic could be so dumb..., 19. Juli 2000

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I agree with just about nothing this man says. But other writers I disagree with just as much are not nearly so galling. The intellectual pretension in this book is absolutely breathtaking in its scope, and books like this give contemporary philosophy a bad name: first comes the conclusion, followed by the 800 pages of academic diarrhea necessary to justify it. It's a good general rule that anything that needs such a complex justification is probably unjustifiable. My biased interpretation of Rawls' main thesis: strip people of all characteristics that would lead them to define justice differently than Rawls, and however they define justice is what society ought to follow.

It is astonishing that for decades in academic circles this thesis has given Rawls acclaim comparable to the Beatles. Thus, the chief objection to _A Theory of Justice_ is not so much the naive ideas themselves, but the titanic chasm between how irrelevant the book deserves to be and how well-received the book actually was.

Most people reading this book probably encounter it in a college class under a professor who thinks Rawls is nothing short of brilliant. They shouldn't give up on the discipline without first reading Robert Nozick's _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_, which is the perfect antitude for the noxious "philosophy" contained herein. Nozick answers, and destroys, Rawls' silliness--point by point. A more acerbic, perhaps more satisfying, rebuttal to Rawls is anthologized, I believe, in Ayn Rand's _Philosopy: Who Needs It_, although mentioning Ayn Rand in a college paper is just about the only surefire way to fail a course.

      Great book, but does he really accept these principles?, 14. Juli 2000

Imagine someone in upper management at a large corporation who talks frequently and even writes books about the importance of labor unions. What would you think if later on you learned he didn't want them in his company?

The situation of John Rawls is similar. His book is about the justice of social institutions. Almost at the very beginning of his book he says, "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions." But Rawls himself is part of an institution, academia, so it behooves us to see what he has done to make academia more just. As far as I can see, he has done nothing along these lines.

Academia is essentially a caste system. Professors and would-be professors are judged primarily, not on their ideas, but on where they went to grad school. The people who get the best jobs and who are most likely to be published are people like John Rawls, people who are from the elite schools. Yet, where people go to grad school would seem to be quite irrelevant, from a moral point of view. The people most likely to go to the elite schools are the rich and those who do well on standardized tests. In other contexts, people like Rawls who are to the left of center do not think that either of these groups deserves anything special. Why should they make an exception when it comes to grad school?

There are many valid reasons why people do not end up in the elite schools. Maybe they are brilliant but they do not do well on standardized tests. Maybe they want to study with a particular person or to be in a particular program. Maybe they were a late bloomer, or maybe they got bad advice on where to go. Maybe they had to take care for a sick parent in the evening, and there were no elite schools nearby. Maybe all the professors at the elite schools in their area of study had reputations as being abusive. There are many reasons why a brilliant person might not have gone to an elite school. Yet, none of these matters to academia. The only thing that matters is going to an elite school.

John Rawls has done nothing to change this situation. In fact, the general tendency of people like Rawls is to deny that academia is a caste system. Which of us is right? This matters for Rawls' system of justice because the people who are supposed to determine the principles of justice are supposed to determine those principles behind what Rawls calls the veil of ignorance. Such people are not supposed to know particular facts about themselves, such as their race or gender, but they are supposed to know the general facts about society. But who determines what those facts are? What if there is a disagreement about them? Oddly enough, in other contexts people like Rawls tend to listen to those at the bottom. It is only in academia where the only opinions that matter are the opinions of those at the top. And since the people at the top all agree that academia is wonderful -- and why would we expect them to say anything different? -- apparently everyone else has to agree with their assessment of the situation.

I have given this book one star. On the day that I hear that Rawls is doing something to make academia more fair and egalitarian, I will give this book five stars.

      Deeply Disappointing, 14. April 2000

It's hard to write clearly about ideas, so it's no surprise that Rawls fails. His book is worse than dense, it's nearly impenetrable, and does not do justice (ahem) to his subject. Far better books exist, and I recommend any of them before this one. Only buy it if it's required for a class -- otherwise you'll feel that you wasted your money.

       All welfare reformers should read Rawls., 10. Februar 2000

In an era in which Reactionaries decry the essential components of the social contract and seek to reconstruct what is essentially a "command and control" hierarchy informed by Industrial ideals of governance and Aristotelian ideas of social "location," Rawls stands alone as a thinker who can cogently and lucidly reconcile the manifestations of everyday life with the essential humanity of democratic ideals.

Rawls is the contemporary voice of a line of thought which has guided our republican system of governance away from its inbuilt potential for dehuminization for over two hundred years. His ideas, when wielded in the proper hands, will become crucial tools for navigating the global dynamics of 21st century democracy.

       The masterpiece of 20th century political thought, 3. Februar 2000

This work has permanently redefined the landscape of political thought in the English-speaking world. Somebody below has said that Robert Nozick completely refuted Rawls in _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_. That is, to say the least, highly debatable. Here is what Nozick says:

"_A Theory of Justice_ is a powerful, deep, subtle, wide-ranging, systematic work in political and moral philosophy which has not seen its like since the writings of J.S. Mill, if then. It is a fountain of illuminating ideas, integrated together in a lovely whole. Political philosophers now must work within Rawls' theory or explain why not."

Political philosophy since Rawls has been entirely devoted to elaborating or refuting his theory. This is not light reading, but if you are interested in political theory, it is essential reading.