The Law of Peoples

De: John Rawls

Narrado por: David Colacci

This book consists of two parts: the essay "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited" and "The Law of Peoples", a major reworking of a much shorter article by the same name. Taken together, they are the culmination of more than 50 years of reflection on liberalism and on some of the most pressing problems of our times.

"The Idea of Public Reason Revisited" is John Rawls' most detailed account of how a modern constitutional democracy, based on a liberal political conception, could and would be viewed as legitimate by reasonable citizens who, on religious, philosophical, or moral grounds, do not themselves accept a liberal comprehensive doctrine.

The Law of Peoples lays out the general principles that can and should be accepted by both liberal and non-liberal societies as the standard for regulating their behavior toward one another. The print book is published by Harvard University Press.

©2012 Redwood Audiobooks (P)2012 Redwood Audiobooks

Reseñas de la Crítica

"Some of Rawls' strongest published expressions of feeling... the final products of a remarkably pure and concentrated career... the writings of John Rawls, whom it is now safe to describe as the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century... owe their influence to the fact that their depth and their insight repay the close attention that their uncompromising theoretical weight and erudition demand." (Thomas Nagel, New Republic)

"The most engaging and accessible book Rawls has written." (David Miller, Times Literary Supplement)

I wish the reader were more lively

Ok - I should actually read this again 'cause I found it so hard to pay attention to and know that I didn't take in nearly as much of it as I should have. Maybe it's just been my state of mind at the time of reading (a good possibility) but something about the combination of reader (I would become agitated the instant I heard his voice by the end - his style puts my mind into a stupor) and style of writing left my mind feeling like a stone skipping along the surface of a pond rather than sinking into it. I was constantly having to make my mind re-focus on the book - it was a chore.

That said, the overall vision of the book, and what details I actually gleaned from it, certainly do seem worth grappling with which is why I want to give it another go. Though, before I read it again I think I should read the two books by this author that seem to have been written as parts one and two of a trilogy of sorts, to which this one is the third installment. I believe those other two books are "A Theory of Justice" and "Political Liberalism"... I hope they make for more engaging reading.

A Framework for Utopia

Overall Rawls The Law of the Peoples is a framework. It's an attempt to provide a basis for a well-reasoned Utopia. You'll find few concrete examples in this short book, but you will find a number of possible exercises that play out the idea of a utopia built on well-reason liberal ideals. I don't think this is the sort of book to read once and put away. It's the sort of book to read once, and then read again when you have time to question and put to task its various propositions. This is the first of Rawls books I've read, and after having read The Law of Peoples I now want to find A Theory of Justice.

Thinly veiled redistributionism

Law of the Peoples comes down to 8 rules, and the 8th is the real kicker: "Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime." There's no question the author has a thinly veiled agenda of redistribution throughout the book.

The real problem with the book, however, is Rawls's incessant use of "descent" and "reasonable" to describe the well-intentioned actors in his utopia. If everyone was descent and reasonable we'd get to Rawls's utopia. Aren't you are reasonable and descent person!?Yet Rawls never bothers to define what is a descent or reasonable person, and how to deal with the opposite.

poorly written

I get that he probably has a point he's trying to make but he's just such a bad writer I can't get to it. He says "reasonable liberal people's" over and over like a mantra and I honestly have no idea what he's on about.