A Theory of Justice: Original Edition

As described: used but good. Very nice.

This is an essential work of political philosophy. Rawls presents a center-left view on political society. A must read for anyone interested in philosophy or politics.

The strongest defense of liberalism I've ever read. Clear, concise, straightforward and easy to read and understand. Enlightening to say the least.

This book is a must read for anyone interested in philosophical theories of social justice. There are essentially three main schools of thought on morality as regards the nature of a good society. Utilitarian, Kantian, and Aristotelian. To oversimplify, Utilitarians are bean counters, Kantian are duty-mongers, and Aristotelians are the World-bank style capacity-builders and champions of healthy self-actualization.Rawls is hard to categorize, because his notion of "veil of ignorance" allows him to synthesize thoughts from almost all three of these schools. True, at first he seems closest to Kant, who says "Hey you, act such that you would not mind if your way of acting were to become the universal way of acting for everyone. Rawl, kind of, adds that acting in this manner is justifiable especially if you assume you never know what side of social justice you might end up at -- the receiving end or the giving one. So it is only rational to act in such a manner that it would not matter to you where you'd end up. As such, he is somewhat of a kindred soul to Utilitarianism as well, because such calculations of give-and-take smack of bean counting in a sense. And of course, it is a symptom of Aristotelianism to be "groping you way around" in dealing with complex moral choices that resist easy classification.Overall, Rawls achieves a very powerful (and influential) synthesis. I don't buy all of his arguments, but they demand respect regardless of your stance. One criticism I have is his style of writing. It is verbose. And example from page 471: "These individuals display skills and abilities, and virtues of character and temperament, that attract our fancy and arouse in us the desire that we should be like them, and able to do the same things." Would it not be more respectful towards the reader's time to say something like this instead "They inspire us to emulate them"? I think all of his arguments could have been just as effectively made in a book one third of the size of this one.

For anyone who wants to work on economics pr politics

Book arrived timely and in great condition

This book is a major contribution to contemporary political philosophy and will shape discussions of justice for decades to come, as it has been doing since it was published. There are critics who sneer at Rawls but their half-baked theories, which reflect their own interests and prejudices, don't come close to his in their scope and persuasiveness. A true thinker for the second half of the 20th century whose ideas remain fresh and pertinent.

Best book, best contemporary philosopher. John Rawls really lived up to represent Kantian ethics.