Rawls ends up as a socialist only if you don't understand or accept the priority of liberty. By that I mean that you end up with a strong redistributive society that provides equality of outcome (as opposed to opportunity) if you do not give the first principle of justice (the one that guarantees equal basic liberty) priority over the second principle of justice (the difference or redistributive principle).
The point I am trying to make is one about liberalism and its concern for the individual above its concern for the overall outcome or end-state of the society. I believe that this is one of the big differences between liberals and socialists. Where the one is concerned with affording individuals opportunities equally (say to become a philosopher) where the other is concerned that the society has not produced an equal number of pink and purple, male or female philosophers.
Technorati Tags: Rawls, philosophy, politics, liberalism, socialism
powered by performancing firefox
No comments:
Post a Comment