Rescuing Justice and Equality: A Critical Engagement

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper critically engages Cohen’s rejection, in Rescuing Justice and Equality, of Rawls’s conception of redistributive justice. I argue that Cohen’s reading of Rawls is flawed and that his suggested revisions to Rawls’s theory are no improvement. The better interpretation involves seeing Rawls’s project as closer to Kant’s than, as Cohen assumes, to libertarians and egalitarians of his own stripe. Once we interpret Rawls as providing a so-called “public right” account and we add Kant’s account of “private right”, Rawls escapes the problems Cohen charges him with and we obtain good reasons to side with Rawls’s Kantian liberalism against Cohen’s egalitarian anarchism.
Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)175-189
JournalSocial Philosophy Today
Volume26
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Equality
Justice
Anarchism
Immanuel Kant
Liberalism
Conception
Rejection

Keywords

  • Amartya Sen
  • Rawls
  • egalitarianism
  • Kant

Cite this

Rescuing Justice and Equality : A Critical Engagement. / Varden, Helga.

In: Social Philosophy Today, Vol. 26, 2010, p. 175-189.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ec64a0362bf54ac991798f0bf5cc3bdb,
title = "Rescuing Justice and Equality: A Critical Engagement",
abstract = "This paper critically engages Cohen’s rejection, in Rescuing Justice and Equality, of Rawls’s conception of redistributive justice. I argue that Cohen’s reading of Rawls is flawed and that his suggested revisions to Rawls’s theory are no improvement. The better interpretation involves seeing Rawls’s project as closer to Kant’s than, as Cohen assumes, to libertarians and egalitarians of his own stripe. Once we interpret Rawls as providing a so-called “public right” account and we add Kant’s account of “private right”, Rawls escapes the problems Cohen charges him with and we obtain good reasons to side with Rawls’s Kantian liberalism against Cohen’s egalitarian anarchism.",
keywords = "Amartya Sen, Rawls, egalitarianism, Kant",
author = "Helga Varden",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.5840/socphiltoday20102615",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "175--189",
journal = "Social Philosophy Today",
issn = "1543-4044",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rescuing Justice and Equality

T2 - A Critical Engagement

AU - Varden, Helga

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - This paper critically engages Cohen’s rejection, in Rescuing Justice and Equality, of Rawls’s conception of redistributive justice. I argue that Cohen’s reading of Rawls is flawed and that his suggested revisions to Rawls’s theory are no improvement. The better interpretation involves seeing Rawls’s project as closer to Kant’s than, as Cohen assumes, to libertarians and egalitarians of his own stripe. Once we interpret Rawls as providing a so-called “public right” account and we add Kant’s account of “private right”, Rawls escapes the problems Cohen charges him with and we obtain good reasons to side with Rawls’s Kantian liberalism against Cohen’s egalitarian anarchism.

AB - This paper critically engages Cohen’s rejection, in Rescuing Justice and Equality, of Rawls’s conception of redistributive justice. I argue that Cohen’s reading of Rawls is flawed and that his suggested revisions to Rawls’s theory are no improvement. The better interpretation involves seeing Rawls’s project as closer to Kant’s than, as Cohen assumes, to libertarians and egalitarians of his own stripe. Once we interpret Rawls as providing a so-called “public right” account and we add Kant’s account of “private right”, Rawls escapes the problems Cohen charges him with and we obtain good reasons to side with Rawls’s Kantian liberalism against Cohen’s egalitarian anarchism.

KW - Amartya Sen

KW - Rawls

KW - egalitarianism

KW - Kant

U2 - 10.5840/socphiltoday20102615

DO - 10.5840/socphiltoday20102615

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 175

EP - 189

JO - Social Philosophy Today

JF - Social Philosophy Today

SN - 1543-4044

ER -