# Critique of Rawlsian Justice?



## RamistThomist (Oct 25, 2017)

Where can one find criticisms (preferably Christian) of John Rawls' model of justice?


----------



## Haeralis (Oct 28, 2017)

Robert Nozick, a colleague of John Rawls from Harvard wrote his seminal work, _Anarchy, State and Utopia _in order to properly respond to Rawls' theories.

Heritage published an interesting piece about Rawls as well.
http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-hidden-influence-john-rawls-the-american-mind
*Heritage's website seems to be down for me, try this one: *
http://www.publicnow.com/view/B574A...88640A2B99D?2016-09-22-22:31:32+01:00-xxx9411

As for me, I am not a Rawls expert, but I did briefly study him during undergraduate and will likely engage in his works further when I begin a doctoral program to study political theory.

After reviewing the notes that I took while reading Rawls' _Theory of Justice, _I developed a list of considerations. These are actually good critiques of liberalism more generally.

He rejects the notion of self-evident truths transcending historical context. This, however, is consistent with his moral and political philosophy of atheism.
Rawls bases his idea of justice on a notion of epistemological neutrality which isn't actually neutral. He arbitrarily favors some values, such as equality and tolerance, over others.
He argues that you cannot know anything with respect to values, but if you attempt to look at everything "neutrally," you can't really comprehend moral questions. For example, if I am neutral in a Rawlsian manner on the question of abortion ("I'm personally against it, but others should be allowed to do it") you have to ignore transcendent standards of right and wrong just because someone else accepts something.
Rawls' "original position" minimizes the value of human differences. Religion, race, gender, social standing cease to be God-given and are arbitrary social constructs.
Rawls' philosophy relies on the idea that humans are rational enough to stand behind the veil of ignorance. Christianity, however, may oppose this since sin taints our natural rationality.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Oct 29, 2017)

Nicholas Wolterstorff has some good critiques. One thing that Rawls seems to be suggesting is some sort idealized arena where we can fairly choose to decide political issues. Which are issues of justice.

But why should I accept this ideal state of affairs? Because I don't believe this ideal state of affairs exist. Sure I can believe that if everyone is nice to eachother the world would be a more just place. But everyone doesn't, hence why we need a justice system. It seems very Platonic but not very practical. 

Also the concept of "public reason" is useless because there isn't one grand "public reason" but multiple reasons used by people to justify their position. 

That was a little abstract. Have you heard two people debating or arguing and you walk away thinking "wow both sides seem right, and both sides seem wrong". Both wronged one another but one person has to be right. How would any appeal to "public reason", whatever that is, decide who is right?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 30, 2017)

In a tax policy paper I wrote some 9 years ago, I touched on Rawls and Nozick. Here's an excerpt.

http://oikosmou.com/Rawlsexcerpt.htm

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 2, 2017)

I think equally problematic is his view on bringing religious "reasons" into public discussions. There's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to. That's not to say there isn't a common kingdom we all live in, but there's no reason why religion can't be part of it.


----------

