If people want to dismiss this school of thought, which many seem inclined to do for political (not theoretical) reasons, at least they should do so based on facts and knowledge, not on falsehoods.
GDP fails to account for many measures of quality of life, such as personal safety, the local climate, leisure time, and more.
It makes sense that individual ethics can vary within a natural law framework: the nonaggression principle isn't so much a rule to be applied as a norm to be followed. It's the foundation that makes life among other people possible.
Rawls’s doubts about global justice make him an effective critic of his own theory of justice.
Rawls’s doubts about global justice make him an effective critic of his own theory of justice.
Rawls’s doubts about global justice make him an effective critic of his own theory of justice.
If democracy is so fundamental, shouldn’t we all have a vote in every place we set foot, from Sunbury, Alaska, to Monaco?
We can easily imagine a world in which leisure does not represent the opportunity cost of labor, and that Mises and Rothbard have been misconstrued.
If democracy is so fundamental, shouldn’t we all have a vote in every place we set foot, from Sunbury, Alaska, to Monaco?
Rawls claims equality is the default position and any departure from it requires justification. This is a trick that slants the debate in Rawls's favor. Anthony Flew didn't fall for it.
