Understanding Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of a Theory of Justice

by Robert Paul Wolff

From th introduction by the authorBriefly, I propose to read A Theory of Justice not as a single piece of philosophical argument to be tested and accepted whole, but as a complex, many-layered record of at least twenty years of philosophical growth and development. I shall argue that Rawls began with a simple, coherent, comprehensible problem and a brilliant idea for its solution [...] The labyrinthic complexities of A Theory of Justice are the consequences of at least three stages in the development of Rawls´thought, in each of which he complicated his theory to meet objections others had raised to earlier versions, or which he himself perceived.ContentsPART INTRODUCTION1. Introductory remarks2. The problem3. The keyPART THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY4. The first form of the model5. A critique of the first form of the model6. The second form of the model7. A critique of the second form of the model8. The third form of the model9. The priority of liberty and other complicationsPART RAWLS AND KANT10. Kant and Rawls11. The Kantian background12. The Kantian interpretation of the original positionPART A CRITIQUE OF THE THEORY13. The general facts about human society14. Primary goods and life-plans15. A formal analysis of the bargaining game16. The logical status of Rawls´s argumentPART IS RAWLS RIGHT?17. The abstractness of Rawls´s TheoryBibliographyIndex

Genres: Philosophy

224 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1977

About the author

Robert Paul Wolff was an American political philosopher and professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Wolff has written widely on topics in political philosophy, including Marxism, tolerance (against liberalism and in favor of anarchism), political justification, and democracy.

Reviews

[Alejandro Teruel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting critique of John Rawls work as set out in three key writings: Justice as Fairness (1958), Distributive Justice (1967) and A Theory of Justice (1971). In his introduction, Wolff aptly points out that:

A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, is an important book, but it is also a puzzling book. It is extremely long, and parts of it move very slowly. Rawls shifts repeatedly from the most sophisticated deployment of the formal methods of economics and mathematics to discussion of outdated topics, materials and references drawn from the ideal utilitarian, intuitionist and empirical psychological schools of English thought that flourished in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

According to Wolff, Rawls´s magnum opus, A Theory of Justice is best understood as evolving out of his previous writings as he attempts to extend his theory from just social practices to a just society and as he attempts to bolster and shield some of his key insights from increasing attack.

Wolff starts by focusing on Rawls´s original bargaining game, intended to derive the principle that inequalities in a just practice can only arise if such inequalities benefit the worst-off members. Under Wolff´s meticulous game-theoretical analysis, Rawls´original bargaining game collapses. In order to recover some key insights, in the second form of his theory, Rawls introduces the device of a "veil of ignorance" and rewrites one of the original principles as the so-called "difference principle", but quickly realizes these ideas require much more elaboration,thus leading him to the third form of the theory.

Wolff criticizes Rawls´ developments on three broad fronts: the game-theoretical front, an epistemological front (for example what does Rawls´"veil of ignorance" actually allow?, what do "extended liberties" mean...) and whether a distributive notion of justice can be developed independently of any sense of production. He also provides some interesting pointers to:

Rawls´s explicit attempt to connect his moral theory to the philosophy of Kant...

Wolff admires Rawls´architectural genius in erecting an inspiring edifice of thought even as he points out, what he believes are its sinking foundations and key structural weaknesses. Is Wolff right? Has he managed to throw down Rawls´s edifice? Quite frankly, I do not know - I can only intuit that there is more to Rawls A Theory of Justice than what Wolff topples and that Wolff´s objections are serious and need to be addressed.

[Left_coast_reads · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rawls seeks a systematic way of determining the principles of justice that govern the basic structure and institutions of society. He wants to provide an alternative to other theories of ethics like utilitarianism and intuitionism. He hits upon the novel idea of a bargaining game between individuals in which they will choose principles. His book is an elaborate study of this game which he refers to as the original position, and why he believes the participants will choose two specific principles. He famously imposes the "veil of ignorance" on the participants, so that they don't know their race, gender, sexuality, religion, class position, etc when choosing principles of justice. The basic idea is promising and I think it's a useful thought experiment, but some problems appear under intense scrutiny. These problems are explained wonderfully by Wolff in his short reconstruction and critique of Rawls' work.

Ultimately the numerous caveats and assumptions that Rawls is forced to introduce rely on questionable epistemological positions (i.e. what the participants in the original position can and can't know). He also relies heavily on game theory and neoclassical economic ideas (Pareto optimality, indifference curves, inequality surplus) but at the same time claims that his theory is not meant to be scrutinized by quantifying various outcomes to determine which principles the participants would choose. Rawls wants to eat his cake and have it, too.

The book is exceptionally long (my copy is 514 pages). Rawls is verbose and tangent-prone. The second half of the book is especially muddled, full of ideas that don't really follow from his initial premises and seem more like his liberal instincts. It should have been two books. The first book could also be 10% shorter without losing anything and 20% shorter while still keeping the important bits.

This book has powerful ideas. Rawls is creative and I think his heart is in the right place. But his task is impossible, especially with the methodological tools he chooses. Important book, but a tough read.