Tuesday, 15 September 2009

I've been writing political philosophy for the last week... Now that I am on Study Leave, I am really enjoying philosophy (rather than 'real' politics) once again!!
Here is what I have been thinking: The problem with liberal political philosophy is that there is no clarity in John Rawls as to what the upper limit is for permissible inequalities. And no clarity (for how could there be?) as to how much 'incentive' the potentially-better-off can require for doing the work that makes the poor better-off. In other words: My argument is going to be that Rawls's difference principle is actually not substantively action-guiding. It is compatible with a vast range of policies, including New Labour/Tory/Republicrat awfulness.
INSTEAD we need a genuinely egalitarian alternative. As recommended by G. Cohen, R. Wilkinson... - BUT NOT Rawls.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

1. 2. 3. Rupert's Read 4. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 23. 24.

25. 26. 27. 28.

29.
I've been writing political philosophy for the last week... Now that I am on Study Leave, I am really enjoying philosophy (rather than 'real' politics) once again!!
Here is what I have been thinking: The problem with liberal political philosophy is that there is no clarity in John Rawls as to what the upper limit is for permissible inequalities. And no clarity (for how could there be?) as to how much 'incentive' the potentially-better-off can require for doing the work that makes the poor better-off. In other words: My argument is going to be that Rawls's difference principle is actually not substantively action-guiding. It is compatible with a vast range of policies, including New Labour/Tory/Republicrat awfulness.
INSTEAD we need a genuinely egalitarian alternative. As recommended by G. Cohen, R. Wilkinson... - BUT NOT Rawls.
30. 31. 32.