What do you think?
Rate this book
Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy
This last book by the late John Rawls, derived from written lectures and notes for his long-running course on modern political philosophy, offers readers an account of the liberal political tradition from a scholar viewed by many as the greatest contemporary exponent of the philosophy behind that tradition. Rawls's goal in the lectures was, he wrote, "to identify the more central features of liberalism as expressing a political conception of justice when liberalism is viewed from within the tradition of democratic constitutionalism." He does this by looking at several strands that make up the liberal and democratic constitutional traditions, and at the historical figures who best represent these strands--among them the contractarians Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau; the utilitarians Hume, Sidgwick, and J. S. Mill; and Marx regarded as a critic of liberalism. Rawls's lectures on Bishop Joseph Butler also are included in an appendix. Constantly revised and refined over three decades, Rawls's lectures on these figures reflect his developing and changing views on the history of liberalism and democracy--as well as how he saw his own work in relation to those traditions. With its clear and careful analyses of the doctrine of the social contract, utilitarianism, and socialism--and of their most influential proponents--this volume has a critical place in the traditions it expounds. Marked by Rawls's characteristic patience and curiosity, and scrupulously edited by his student and teaching assistant, Samuel Freeman, these lectures are a fitting final addition to his oeuvre, and to the history of political philosophy as well.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
80 people are currently reading
1281 people want to read
About the author
John Rawls
56 books617 followersJohn Bordley Rawls was an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy. He held the James Bryant Conant University Professorship at Harvard. His magnum opus A Theory of Justice (1971) is now regarded as "one of the primary texts in political philosophy." His work in political philosophy, dubbed Rawlsianism, takes as its starting point the argument that "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." Rawls employs a number of thought experiments—including the famous veil of ignorance—to determine what constitutes a fair agreement in which "everyone is impartially situated as equals," in order to determine principles of social justice.
Rawls received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls's thought "helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself."
Rawls received both the Schock Prize for Logic and Philosophy and the National Humanities Medal in 1999, the latter presented by President Bill Clinton, in recognition of how Rawls's thought "helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy itself."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
June 3, 2021
ينتمي جون رولز إلى مدرسة الفلسفة التحليلية وعرف باشتغاله على عدد من المواضيع طول فترة حياته من مثل : العدالة، السياسية/ الفلسفة السياسية، العقد الاجتماعي، والليبرالية. ويعتبر في نظر كثيرين؛ أهم فيلسوف سياسي في القرن العشرين.
كان جون راولز (مواليد 1921 ، ت 2002) فيلسوفًا سياسيًا أمريكيًا في التقليد الليبرالي. "تصف نظريته للعدالة كإنصاف مجتمعًا من المواطنين الأحرار الذين يتمتعون بحقوق أساسية متساوية ويتعاونون في إطار نظام اقتصادي قائم على المساواة. تستكشف نظريته عن الليبرالية السياسية الاستخدام المشروع للسلطة السياسية في الديمقراطية ، وتتصور كيف يمكن أن تستمر الوحدة المدنية على الرغم من تنوع وجهات النظر العالمية التي تسمح بها المؤسسات الحرة. حددت كتاباته حول قانون الشعوب سياسة خارجية ليبرالية تهدف إلى إنشاء نظام دولي دائم مسالم ومتسامح."
أبرز أعماله: كتاب "نظرية في العدالة" (1971)
وهو من أهم كلاسيكيات الأعمال المكتوبة في تاريخ الفلسفة السياسيّة والأخلاقيّة بشكل عام، وفي الفلسفة الليبرالية على الخصوص. "يدافع رولز في نظرية العدالة عن مفهوم «العدالة بوصفها إنصافًا»، فهو يرى أنه لا يمكن تحقيق نصيب كافٍ من العدالة بالاعتماد على المذهب النفعي، لأن هذا المبدأ ينسجم خفيةً مع نماذج الحكم غير المرغوب فيها، التي تحصل بها الأغلبية على النصيب الأكبر من السعادة بإهمال حقوق الأقلية ومصالحها."
يشكل معظم محتوى هذا الكتاب، محاضرات جون رولز وملاحظاته المكتوبة لمقرر تعليمي في الفلسفة السياسية الحديثة الذي درسه في جامعة هارفارد في ستينيات القرن الماضي حتى تقاعده في 1995. إضافة الى كتابه نظرية في العدالة 1971، درّس محاضرات عن معظم الفلاسفة السياسيين التاريخين من مثل : رولز ولوك و هوبز وهيوم ومِل وماركس. كما ناقش في عدد من محاضراته بعض أعمال كل من روسو و سيدجويك. بالتوازي مع محاضرات نشرت في عام 2000 في كتاب "العدالة كإنصاف."
توضح هذه المحاضرات نظرة رولز للعدالة "عرض مختلف مبادئ «العدالة التوزيعية» كما ناقشها الفلاسفة الكلاسيكيون، بهدف البحث في خلفيات الاختلاف الحاصل ما بين أنواع العدالة ووظائفها، ثم عمد إلى اقتراح مبادئ دقيقة «للعدالة الشرعية» التي أطلق عليها «قناع الجهل»، ومعناه أن طبيعة الأفراد هي الأنانية التي تجعلهم يختارون دائماً ما يحبونه لأنفسهم."، كما تبين المحاضرات تصوره لتاريخ العقد الاجتماعي وتباينه بين الفلاسفة السياسيين التاريخين الذي استعرض اعمالهم في المحاضرات بهذا الشأن. "تقترح نظرية العقد الاجتماعي بديلاً للنظرية النفعية التي تقتضي بأولية ما هو سياسي على ما هو اقتصادي."
في تأملٍ لأعمال المؤلفين النفعيين الثلاثة: هيوم- سيدجويك- وجون ستيوارت مِل.
"مفهوم جون رولز للعقد الاجتماعي هو مواصلة للمشروع التعاقدي الذي انطلق مع لوك و روسو، و خاصة إمانويل كانط الذي يتشابه إلى حد كبير مع جون رولز من جهة نقده للنفعيّة، وحرصه على الانسجام مع التصوّر الواجبي (Déontologique) للأخلاق. إلاّ أنّ "جون رولز"، سيحاول أن يتحرّر من الأفق الميتافيزيقي للنظريّة الكانطية، محاولا البرهنة على نظرية جديدة في العقد الاجتماعي تختلف في جذورها عن الفهم الكلاسيكي الذي نشأ مع ميلاد مدرسة العقد الاجتماعي، وهو ما نستشفه في هذه المحاضرات التي تسوغ عدداً من الحجج التي استخدمها في البرهنة على تصوّره التعاقدي."
كما يتناول رولز، في محاضراته الحديث عن: فلسفة الأخلاق الحديثة، ومشكلات فلسفة الأخلاق الحديثة. ويجتهد لتفسير "كيفية نشوء النظام الأخلاقي من الطبيعة البشرية ومن مقتضيات عيشنا معًا، وكيفية التمتع بما يكفي من دوافع لنعيش الحياة كما ينبغي."
الكتاب يحمل أفكار عديدة حول مفهوم العدالة ومبادئه، والحريات الفردية، أو مفهوم الإرادة الحرة أو الإرادة العامة؛ وعلاقة ذلك في العيش في مجتمع تسوده العدالة الاجتماعية والسياسية لكافة الأفراد بما يحملونه من فروق فردية، دون الاخلال بالعقد الاجتماعي.
الترجمة جميلة وسلسة. و الهوامش علامات مضيئة للمادة.
كان جون راولز (مواليد 1921 ، ت 2002) فيلسوفًا سياسيًا أمريكيًا في التقليد الليبرالي. "تصف نظريته للعدالة كإنصاف مجتمعًا من المواطنين الأحرار الذين يتمتعون بحقوق أساسية متساوية ويتعاونون في إطار نظام اقتصادي قائم على المساواة. تستكشف نظريته عن الليبرالية السياسية الاستخدام المشروع للسلطة السياسية في الديمقراطية ، وتتصور كيف يمكن أن تستمر الوحدة المدنية على الرغم من تنوع وجهات النظر العالمية التي تسمح بها المؤسسات الحرة. حددت كتاباته حول قانون الشعوب سياسة خارجية ليبرالية تهدف إلى إنشاء نظام دولي دائم مسالم ومتسامح."
أبرز أعماله: كتاب "نظرية في العدالة" (1971)
وهو من أهم كلاسيكيات الأعمال المكتوبة في تاريخ الفلسفة السياسيّة والأخلاقيّة بشكل عام، وفي الفلسفة الليبرالية على الخصوص. "يدافع رولز في نظرية العدالة عن مفهوم «العدالة بوصفها إنصافًا»، فهو يرى أنه لا يمكن تحقيق نصيب كافٍ من العدالة بالاعتماد على المذهب النفعي، لأن هذا المبدأ ينسجم خفيةً مع نماذج الحكم غير المرغوب فيها، التي تحصل بها الأغلبية على النصيب الأكبر من السعادة بإهمال حقوق الأقلية ومصالحها."
يشكل معظم محتوى هذا الكتاب، محاضرات جون رولز وملاحظاته المكتوبة لمقرر تعليمي في الفلسفة السياسية الحديثة الذي درسه في جامعة هارفارد في ستينيات القرن الماضي حتى تقاعده في 1995. إضافة الى كتابه نظرية في العدالة 1971، درّس محاضرات عن معظم الفلاسفة السياسيين التاريخين من مثل : رولز ولوك و هوبز وهيوم ومِل وماركس. كما ناقش في عدد من محاضراته بعض أعمال كل من روسو و سيدجويك. بالتوازي مع محاضرات نشرت في عام 2000 في كتاب "العدالة كإنصاف."
توضح هذه المحاضرات نظرة رولز للعدالة "عرض مختلف مبادئ «العدالة التوزيعية» كما ناقشها الفلاسفة الكلاسيكيون، بهدف البحث في خلفيات الاختلاف الحاصل ما بين أنواع العدالة ووظائفها، ثم عمد إلى اقتراح مبادئ دقيقة «للعدالة الشرعية» التي أطلق عليها «قناع الجهل»، ومعناه أن طبيعة الأفراد هي الأنانية التي تجعلهم يختارون دائماً ما يحبونه لأنفسهم."، كما تبين المحاضرات تصوره لتاريخ العقد الاجتماعي وتباينه بين الفلاسفة السياسيين التاريخين الذي استعرض اعمالهم في المحاضرات بهذا الشأن. "تقترح نظرية العقد الاجتماعي بديلاً للنظرية النفعية التي تقتضي بأولية ما هو سياسي على ما هو اقتصادي."
في تأملٍ لأعمال المؤلفين النفعيين الثلاثة: هيوم- سيدجويك- وجون ستيوارت مِل.
"مفهوم جون رولز للعقد الاجتماعي هو مواصلة للمشروع التعاقدي الذي انطلق مع لوك و روسو، و خاصة إمانويل كانط الذي يتشابه إلى حد كبير مع جون رولز من جهة نقده للنفعيّة، وحرصه على الانسجام مع التصوّر الواجبي (Déontologique) للأخلاق. إلاّ أنّ "جون رولز"، سيحاول أن يتحرّر من الأفق الميتافيزيقي للنظريّة الكانطية، محاولا البرهنة على نظرية جديدة في العقد الاجتماعي تختلف في جذورها عن الفهم الكلاسيكي الذي نشأ مع ميلاد مدرسة العقد الاجتماعي، وهو ما نستشفه في هذه المحاضرات التي تسوغ عدداً من الحجج التي استخدمها في البرهنة على تصوّره التعاقدي."
كما يتناول رولز، في محاضراته الحديث عن: فلسفة الأخلاق الحديثة، ومشكلات فلسفة الأخلاق الحديثة. ويجتهد لتفسير "كيفية نشوء النظام الأخلاقي من الطبيعة البشرية ومن مقتضيات عيشنا معًا، وكيفية التمتع بما يكفي من دوافع لنعيش الحياة كما ينبغي."
الكتاب يحمل أفكار عديدة حول مفهوم العدالة ومبادئه، والحريات الفردية، أو مفهوم الإرادة الحرة أو الإرادة العامة؛ وعلاقة ذلك في العيش في مجتمع تسوده العدالة الاجتماعية والسياسية لكافة الأفراد بما يحملونه من فروق فردية، دون الاخلال بالعقد الاجتماعي.
الترجمة جميلة وسلسة. و الهوامش علامات مضيئة للمادة.
December 14, 2022
مهم جداً
August 27, 2017
Rawls does an excellent job of explaining the core philosophers of western liberalism along with critiques by Marx and to a lesser extent Rousseau. Even thought I was familiar with each of these thinkers, Rawls helped me gain a firm grasp on each along with an understanding of the development of liberalism. Rawls does not dwell at length on this own Justice as Fairness, although the theory is mentioned at times as contrasting with certain thinks. In particular, Rawls theory of knowing too much leads to poor judgements. Yet, if one is looking detail on Rawls’ own work, this isn’t it. If you are looking for a insightful, clear, but not oversimplified intro into Hobbs, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, Mills, and Marx, this book is for you. Here are some key points I gleaned.
Liberalism - "A legitimate regime is such that people live in social institutions are justifiable to all citizens by addressing the reason theoretical and practical. Justification of the institution of the social world must be in principle available to everyone until justify level to all who live on the legitimacy of the liberal been depends on justification” 13
HOBBES:
- Hobbes’ project was to show that Charles II after the civil war was a legitimate ruler.
- Natural law - while divine in origin, completely derived from what a rational person would find reasonable.
- In a state of nature, man lives in state of "continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”
- Rawls uses the metaphor of the prisoners dilemma to explain Hobbes theory of why an absolute ruler is just. It is rational to trade freedom for relief from the state of nature. But you’d only do the rational if you were assured others would do the same. Thus, the need for the absolute ruler
Social contract - amount members of society with the sovereign as their agent.
LOCKE
- Solving a different problem than Hobbes - supporting the legitimacy of the parliament just disbanded by the king.
- Locke adds freedom to his state of nature. - People can’t agree to change in nature unless it improves their lot. Thus, Hobbes’ absolute is worse than the state of nature.
-Social contract maintains the legitimate government can be founded only on the cornet of free, equal, rational, personal.
- God as sovereign of the world promulgates law that is universal and ties humanity together. We can use reason to decide natural law as compared to divine law. Thus, nature law provides an independent basis for liberalism. The law of nature would suffice without venial people (cf Hobbes)
- Locke starts with the right to punish the venial person who transgresses natural law. The social contract is limited to preventing such transgressions and the common good. But not the most common good - like utilitarians.
- Property - while a conditional right, not a right that gives you other rights (eg. To vote)
- Social contract based on collective rationality. Again uses the P’s dilemma to show why people could contract for a propertied class system.
HUME
Problem trying to solve: a legitimate form of government that promotes the greatest welfare that could be set up as compared to alternatives. Utilitarianism
U. Differ from Hobbes. Rejects psychological egotism - there is an objective reasonable principle of utility
H v Locke. Locke - historical; Hume naturalist study of nature/psychology; Hume - first principles of psychology; Locke first contract.
H’s critique of social contract: Consent can’t form the basis - too distant; too many psychological factors, most founded on force anyway. There are duties we owe others (fidelity; justice toward property; civic allegiance. These flow not from natural rights or agreement, but from utility. Thus, social contract is implausible and unnecessary.
Notion of the good (pleasure/absence of pain) vs. the right. Institutions are legit if the maximize the good, understood as either measure or fulfillment of desire where we are summit gate good all individuals in society, both present and the future (not the past - cf Locke). There is not separate right of equality
Moral judgements are based on a psychological “common sense” tendency toward moral sensibility
Judicious spectator - we should judge based on the judicious spectator without reference to our own preferences.
ROUSSEAU
- Problem trying to solve - pave the way for a new social order that would come with transformations such as the French Revolution. To create a link between natural inequalities (strength; artistic talent) vs. social (income)
- Man is naturally good and only through social institutions become bad
- Stages of history of man leading to our current stage of political authority which uses the right of property, which was legit in earlier stages, to arbitrary power to enforce equality. Two varying forces - of perfectibility and alienation. This is an outcome of a particular course of history, not the only one. There can be social institution that bring out the force of perfectibility.
MILL
-Educator of enlighten age, to defend the appropriate fundamental philosophical, moral, and political principles a modern society should be organized.
-Benthem: happiness, meaning by that the term pleasure and exemption from pain is the only thing desirable in itself and that all other desires are a means too that end. Mills thought this was too narrow and inadequate to to deal with the political and social questions of the age. Social structures that merely provide incentives for good and disentives for bad. But creating a culture where people have the character not to commit crimes
-Human happiness is the first principle that can be used to settle disputes. But happiness not nearly pleasurable feelings but a way of being. Requires the higher faculties.
-Common sense morality based on utility.
-Cf. locke - legitimat regine is one that can arise in an ideal history contracted by rational person without violating any duties imposes on them by a law of nature (266). Rousseau by contact sees inequality as giving rise to vices of civilization. The social contract is the right principals between free and equal citizens to benefit the general will. Equality is more central to Rousseau and his work brings us closer to the justice as fairness concept of Rawls himself.
- Justice (all laws apply equally) and liberty (enough freedom to decide his own utility) are two gudinging principles of Mills’ utility.
- Mill justice is byproduct of utility not a separate standard to judge utility. Thing are “wrong” when the are bad enough that it increases social utility to stop them.
Liberty is also subordinate to utility.
- prevailing moral wisdom because it allows to decide unreflexively - the way I feel toward those I like becomes what’s moral
- the only justification for coercion is to stop an act path would produce even to some one else. Not for his own good. Can be seen as a moral principle limiting certain reasons for guiding legislation. Only certain types reasons are justifiable when considering public utility. Yet Mill would not see this limit as evoking a natural right apart from utility. He’s saying that this limit is a type of public utility.
- while justice as fairness has a different grounds for limiting government action, the two are not antithetical.
MARX
Studies of class societies, of which capitalism is one. Where people receive or don’t receive benefits because of their class. "For example in slave societies the labor of the slave is at the disposal of the master as owner in the slave unpaid labor in the product he produces is the property of the master. And feudal society the surplus labor of the server was appropriated by the Lord to come the surf was banned in most fields the surfers were part work a certain number of days each year. This was forced labor with the server produced on the Lord's field was the Lords…. These two examples illustrate institutional setups that enable a certain class of people to appropriate as their own the property. ... Mark studies capitalism as a class society. This means that for him there is some class of persons in capitalist society who an virtue of their position in the institutional set up our able to appropriate the surplus labor of others. For him, like slavery in feudalism, capitalism is a system of domination and exploitation. What makes capitalism distinctive is that to those who make their decisions in guide their actions according to its norms, it does not appear to be a system of domination and exploitation. Mark thinks we need a theory to explain why these features of the system go unrecognized and have they are hidden from view.” 326
Because capitalist, as a class, own the means of production as property, works must pay a fee (surplus labor value) to use their productive instruments (labor) 330. Thus, exploitation happens as part of a fully functioning capitalist system, not a distorted one..
Taking of surplus labor value is not bad by-itlself. A socialist system would take but it would do so to provide services to labor not to capitalist as private property.
Capitalism under Marx is not always seen as bad by itself.
Liberalism - "A legitimate regime is such that people live in social institutions are justifiable to all citizens by addressing the reason theoretical and practical. Justification of the institution of the social world must be in principle available to everyone until justify level to all who live on the legitimacy of the liberal been depends on justification” 13
HOBBES:
- Hobbes’ project was to show that Charles II after the civil war was a legitimate ruler.
- Natural law - while divine in origin, completely derived from what a rational person would find reasonable.
- In a state of nature, man lives in state of "continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”
- Rawls uses the metaphor of the prisoners dilemma to explain Hobbes theory of why an absolute ruler is just. It is rational to trade freedom for relief from the state of nature. But you’d only do the rational if you were assured others would do the same. Thus, the need for the absolute ruler
Social contract - amount members of society with the sovereign as their agent.
LOCKE
- Solving a different problem than Hobbes - supporting the legitimacy of the parliament just disbanded by the king.
- Locke adds freedom to his state of nature. - People can’t agree to change in nature unless it improves their lot. Thus, Hobbes’ absolute is worse than the state of nature.
-Social contract maintains the legitimate government can be founded only on the cornet of free, equal, rational, personal.
- God as sovereign of the world promulgates law that is universal and ties humanity together. We can use reason to decide natural law as compared to divine law. Thus, nature law provides an independent basis for liberalism. The law of nature would suffice without venial people (cf Hobbes)
- Locke starts with the right to punish the venial person who transgresses natural law. The social contract is limited to preventing such transgressions and the common good. But not the most common good - like utilitarians.
- Property - while a conditional right, not a right that gives you other rights (eg. To vote)
- Social contract based on collective rationality. Again uses the P’s dilemma to show why people could contract for a propertied class system.
HUME
Problem trying to solve: a legitimate form of government that promotes the greatest welfare that could be set up as compared to alternatives. Utilitarianism
U. Differ from Hobbes. Rejects psychological egotism - there is an objective reasonable principle of utility
H v Locke. Locke - historical; Hume naturalist study of nature/psychology; Hume - first principles of psychology; Locke first contract.
H’s critique of social contract: Consent can’t form the basis - too distant; too many psychological factors, most founded on force anyway. There are duties we owe others (fidelity; justice toward property; civic allegiance. These flow not from natural rights or agreement, but from utility. Thus, social contract is implausible and unnecessary.
Notion of the good (pleasure/absence of pain) vs. the right. Institutions are legit if the maximize the good, understood as either measure or fulfillment of desire where we are summit gate good all individuals in society, both present and the future (not the past - cf Locke). There is not separate right of equality
Moral judgements are based on a psychological “common sense” tendency toward moral sensibility
Judicious spectator - we should judge based on the judicious spectator without reference to our own preferences.
ROUSSEAU
- Problem trying to solve - pave the way for a new social order that would come with transformations such as the French Revolution. To create a link between natural inequalities (strength; artistic talent) vs. social (income)
- Man is naturally good and only through social institutions become bad
- Stages of history of man leading to our current stage of political authority which uses the right of property, which was legit in earlier stages, to arbitrary power to enforce equality. Two varying forces - of perfectibility and alienation. This is an outcome of a particular course of history, not the only one. There can be social institution that bring out the force of perfectibility.
MILL
-Educator of enlighten age, to defend the appropriate fundamental philosophical, moral, and political principles a modern society should be organized.
-Benthem: happiness, meaning by that the term pleasure and exemption from pain is the only thing desirable in itself and that all other desires are a means too that end. Mills thought this was too narrow and inadequate to to deal with the political and social questions of the age. Social structures that merely provide incentives for good and disentives for bad. But creating a culture where people have the character not to commit crimes
-Human happiness is the first principle that can be used to settle disputes. But happiness not nearly pleasurable feelings but a way of being. Requires the higher faculties.
-Common sense morality based on utility.
-Cf. locke - legitimat regine is one that can arise in an ideal history contracted by rational person without violating any duties imposes on them by a law of nature (266). Rousseau by contact sees inequality as giving rise to vices of civilization. The social contract is the right principals between free and equal citizens to benefit the general will. Equality is more central to Rousseau and his work brings us closer to the justice as fairness concept of Rawls himself.
- Justice (all laws apply equally) and liberty (enough freedom to decide his own utility) are two gudinging principles of Mills’ utility.
- Mill justice is byproduct of utility not a separate standard to judge utility. Thing are “wrong” when the are bad enough that it increases social utility to stop them.
Liberty is also subordinate to utility.
- prevailing moral wisdom because it allows to decide unreflexively - the way I feel toward those I like becomes what’s moral
- the only justification for coercion is to stop an act path would produce even to some one else. Not for his own good. Can be seen as a moral principle limiting certain reasons for guiding legislation. Only certain types reasons are justifiable when considering public utility. Yet Mill would not see this limit as evoking a natural right apart from utility. He’s saying that this limit is a type of public utility.
- while justice as fairness has a different grounds for limiting government action, the two are not antithetical.
MARX
Studies of class societies, of which capitalism is one. Where people receive or don’t receive benefits because of their class. "For example in slave societies the labor of the slave is at the disposal of the master as owner in the slave unpaid labor in the product he produces is the property of the master. And feudal society the surplus labor of the server was appropriated by the Lord to come the surf was banned in most fields the surfers were part work a certain number of days each year. This was forced labor with the server produced on the Lord's field was the Lords…. These two examples illustrate institutional setups that enable a certain class of people to appropriate as their own the property. ... Mark studies capitalism as a class society. This means that for him there is some class of persons in capitalist society who an virtue of their position in the institutional set up our able to appropriate the surplus labor of others. For him, like slavery in feudalism, capitalism is a system of domination and exploitation. What makes capitalism distinctive is that to those who make their decisions in guide their actions according to its norms, it does not appear to be a system of domination and exploitation. Mark thinks we need a theory to explain why these features of the system go unrecognized and have they are hidden from view.” 326
Because capitalist, as a class, own the means of production as property, works must pay a fee (surplus labor value) to use their productive instruments (labor) 330. Thus, exploitation happens as part of a fully functioning capitalist system, not a distorted one..
Taking of surplus labor value is not bad by-itlself. A socialist system would take but it would do so to provide services to labor not to capitalist as private property.
Capitalism under Marx is not always seen as bad by itself.
October 23, 2025
The Rousseau lectures in particular are quite interesting. I also highly recommend reading the Butler lectures in the appendix, as they seem to me to “mirror” his discussion of Hobbes. It’s never quite clear what Rawls sees Hobbes (on whom he gives the most lavish praise in the whole book) as getting wrong until you understand the complex role that “psychological egoism” is supposed to play in Hobbesian, Butlerian, and Utilitarian thinking about justice. The Marx and Mill lectures are interesting, insofar as it highlights the parts of Mill that Rawls sees himself as appropriating in his theory of justice, and the parts of Marx that Rawls takes his theory of justice to be responding to, but it’s the social contract tradition that he really makes a meal of.
August 20, 2024
I liked the section on Marx most, and skimmed the appendices on Sidgwick and Butler. I still have yet to read Rawl's book on Liberal Politics. Three stars.
July 25, 2020
As others have noted, this isn't best suited to the absolute beginner. However, it is a great outline for the beginner who is already somewhat comfortable with the key ideas of most of the thinkers featured and who would like to learn more and see the insights of one of the 20th century's best philosophers.
May 15, 2007
I don't agree with Rawls' Politcal liberalism, but I greatly appreciate his scholarship on the founding fathers of modern political philosophy. This is a great book for anyone interested in early social contract theory and early utilitarian theory. His exegesis on Hobbes, Locke, & Mill is indispensable; however, his comments on Rousseau & Marx leaves one wanting more. Perhaps this reflects something of his own politics. Great book for the student or lay-man.
September 15, 2014
If you're looking for a layman's primer on political philosophy this is not quite it. While Rawls introduces and contextualises each philosopher he discusses, it's important to recognise that these are still notes for a university-level course on philosophy.
July 8, 2020
philosophy is hard i don't understand it. feel like the overview of locke, hobbes, marx, hume was a good expansion of knowledge, but maybe that was because I was already familiar with the general idea of their theories? tbh my eyes glazed when i read through most of the sidgwick and butler stuff because when Rawls started discussing how they utilized a weighted sum to describe a morality? all in all a good survey of several theories, explained in simple english.
August 16, 2017
A great way to take a tour of political philosophy given by one of the best tour guides on the subject, John Rawls. Rawls' best students use his notes to compile his lectures on Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Rousseau, and Mill. The final chapter is on Marx as liberalism's best critic.
February 26, 2017
skip the lecture on sidgwick, it's incomprehensible if you're an idiot like me.
December 31, 2024
Lecciones de filosofía política de John Rawls es una compilación de las clases y conferencias que el autor impartió a lo largo de su carrera académica, donde se exponen sus principales ideas acerca de la justicia, la libertad y la equidad. A diferencia de sus obras más teóricas, como Teoría de la justicia o El liberalismo político, este libro muestra la faceta más pedagógica de Rawls, revelando su habilidad para explicar conceptos complejos de manera clara y accesible.
El texto ofrece un recorrido ordenado por los pilares del pensamiento político occidental, desde la tradición contractualista hasta las teorías de la justicia contemporáneas. La fuerza de Lecciones de filosofía política radica precisamente en la capacidad de Rawls para ilustrar cada postura con ejemplos concretos y didácticos, lo que lo hace un excepcional maestro. Muchos lectores coinciden en que, en este formato, Rawls destaca más como profesor que como filósofo, pues traduce sus ideas con fluidez y cercanía, facilitando la comprensión de temas que suelen resultar densos.
En conjunto, Lecciones de filosofía política merece una calificación de 5 sobre 5, ya que revela el lado más didáctico de un autor fundamental para la filosofía política del siglo XX. Este libro no solo sirve como introducción a la obra rawlsiana, sino también como un ejemplo de la importancia de la labor docente en la transmisión de grandes teorías que marcan el debate público.
El texto ofrece un recorrido ordenado por los pilares del pensamiento político occidental, desde la tradición contractualista hasta las teorías de la justicia contemporáneas. La fuerza de Lecciones de filosofía política radica precisamente en la capacidad de Rawls para ilustrar cada postura con ejemplos concretos y didácticos, lo que lo hace un excepcional maestro. Muchos lectores coinciden en que, en este formato, Rawls destaca más como profesor que como filósofo, pues traduce sus ideas con fluidez y cercanía, facilitando la comprensión de temas que suelen resultar densos.
En conjunto, Lecciones de filosofía política merece una calificación de 5 sobre 5, ya que revela el lado más didáctico de un autor fundamental para la filosofía política del siglo XX. Este libro no solo sirve como introducción a la obra rawlsiana, sino también como un ejemplo de la importancia de la labor docente en la transmisión de grandes teorías que marcan el debate público.
August 12, 2011
Just a fantastic set of lectures. Not only do they give insight into the subjects that Rawls deals with (Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.), but they also show how Rawls appropriates the ideas of these thinkers.
Read
September 23, 2010Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy by John Rawls (2008)
March 22, 2012
This book is very long but its very interesting and it taught me alot
Read
July 3, 2011This book is unnecessary if you've read Hobbes, Locke, Rouseau, Mills, etc. It's basically a more leftist version of Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews