What are lits thoughts on John Rawls's theory of justice?

Bumping to keep it in the catalogue

Does no one on Lit know this book? Disgraceful

>>9878737
It's just that Nozick and MacIntyre did the job for us.

Sorry, what are you asking?

Neglect of the second principle is basically why benevolent capitalism never pans out.

>>9878750
That really doesn't justify the fact no one has read it to be honest

>>9878705

Retarded sophistry. It is plague-tier unfortunate that this garbage is in any way popular and influential.

>>9878705
i didn´t read it and i don´t know anything about joh rawls, but it probably sucks

Awful book, not even joking. Basically, "let me justify my secularized Protestantism" for 600+ pages. The thought is banal, the writing obscure. Tries to build a government that would avoid coercion, but instituting the difference principle would require massive amounts of state coercion. No one seems to realize this. It also has a pie-in-the-sky quality, like just-so story. Just a truly terrible book.

If you have to know some Rawls, OP, just read "Justice as Fairness" (either the article from the start of his career or the book from the end) and call it a day. The man literally built a career and churned out thousands and thousands of pages, based on the most banal insight imaginable.

>>9878705

It's not exactly an entertaining read. It is an articulation of an ethical theory, and thus, written to be as tediously comprehensive as possible.

That being said, it is highly influential. Not so much for Rawls' conclusions, rather the 'veil of ignorance' thought experiment that is central to his theory has been taken by numerous other modern philosophy and applied to argue for principles Rawls never intended. If you're interested in political philosophy it is a must read. However, I would still only read certain chapters rather than a back to front. Even the first 100 pages or so would suffice.

After that read Nozick's, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he picks it apart and raises some seriously challenging questions for Rawls' theory.

>>9879455

>the writing obscure.
>Just a truly terrible book.

It's written for an academic audience who is acquainted with the literature and jargon of the field. It's not something you pick up to read on the toilet or in bed.

>>9881086
Thank God at least one person on this board actually addresses the topic on this thread in an appropriate fashion. Much appreciated.