Rather, he began from certain moral and political sentiments that are present in contemporary liberal society. But unlike an extreme rationalist, he did not theorize from a blank slate. He was something of a “rationalist,” as Michael Oakeshott employed the term.
Yet Rawls always regarded ideal theory as a prelude to “non-ideal theory,” the task of reforming political arrangements in order to bring them more in line with reason. He worked for the most part in what he called “ideal theory,” discussing political arrangements as they might be “but for” history and happenstance. Rawls’s lifelong project was an attempt at political conflict-resolution at a high level of philosophical abstraction. But as someone who routinely teaches Rawls and sympathizes with elements of his project, I do have some thoughts about its legacy. I am not a Rawlsian, and my interest in the finer points of Rawlsian scholarship has limits. But the task of assessing its legacy is complicated by the fact that Rawls’s ideas changed over time, and the reasons for these changes remain a matter of lively controversy. Most Law & Liberty readers are familiar with Theory’s basic arguments. A Theory of Justice (1971)was one of the most influential works of twentieth-century political theory, and we have now arrived at its 50th anniversary.
0 kommentar(er)
