Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

John Rawls' Theory of Justice is the single most important philosophical work of the Left since Marx. As even a brief search of the Internet will reveal, it is one of the most widely discussed topics in political philosophy. I fondly recall arguing about Rawls' theories in John Singer's Values and Institutions class at Colgate, so it was interesting to finally try reading it. It turns out, the revolution that Rawls created was based on a simple but totally specious change in the assumptions about human nature, and upon this rotten foundation he built up a shaky edifice to justify Liberal yearnings. The book is reminiscent of a treatise by a Medieval scientist, working out the elaborate orbital patterns that planets would require if the Universe actually were geocentric. In order to accomplish his revolution, Rawls posited a counterintuitive and antihistorical starting point for the discussion of political theory. The great political philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, etc., had used the "state of nature" as the starting point for their theories. In this state of nature, men were assumed to be completely self-centered and dedicated only to their own interests, with the result that life was "nasty, brutish and short" and only the strongest survived. But gradually men tired of this blood sport and entered into a social contract wherein they surrendered some personal sovereignty to a central governing entity, which, in whatever form, would enforce a set of impartial laws in order to protect men from one another. This is a pretty minimalist position, the social contract and the government that it creates serve only to provide a certain level of physical security, leaving men free to pursue their own fortunes and taking no interest in the degree to which they succeed. But it conforms with our intuitive understanding of human nature, our observations of our fellow man and, most importantly, it has proven a workable basis for understanding politics for some 300 years. The essential change that Rawls made was to replace the State of Nature with his "Original Position", wherein, when it came time for primordial man to enter into a social contract, because he would be ignorant of his own capacities (the "veil of ignorance"), he would pursue a low risk strategy and choose a social contract based on egalitarianism; he would seek the most equal distribution of wealth and power possible, just in case it turned out that he was the least fit of the species. If Rawls is right, if men acted on the assumption that they would be one of the ones left behind once the race of life begins, then the rest of his theory might be worth examining. But, of course, this assumption runs counter to everything we understand about ourselves and our fellow human beings. It is a fuzzy headed liberal's view of the appropriate strategy for life's losers--make political decisions on the basis of the likelihood that you are a loser and need help. But look around a casino or a Lottery Ticket line and you will see that the losers think that they too are winners. Look at polls about taxation levels and you find that the lower class does not want the upper class taxed too heavily, because they assume that they, or their children, are headed for that bracket eventually. It turns out that people act very much as the great philosophers expected them to; they act out of naked self interest and the belief that they are capable and deserve whatever they can achieve. The justice that men seek is in fact little more than an impartial application of a set of laws that are fair to all, not an equal distribution of goods and power, which would necessarily impinge on the freedom of all. Rawls' great error is to try to base his theory on a generalized yearning for "happiness". Rawls was seeking a positive definition of Man's aspiration in the "original position", but the inevitable result, because we will all define happiness differently, is to create a foundational quagmire for his theories. After all, you may define happiness as having a lot of stuff, but I may define it as spiritual enlightenment. The classic understanding, basing the social contract on the avoidance of death, is obviously universal, we are all agreed that our own deaths are to be avoided, and, therefore, more sound. . Finding the basic supposition that props up Rawls' whole theory to be fundamentally incorrect, it behooves us little to examine the superstructure he seeks to construct upon this error. Suffice it to say, no system of government has ever achieved a more equal distribution of wealth and power than has the American Constitutional Republic and it is based on the classic understanding of human nature found in Hobbes and Locke. 'Nuff said. GRADE: F