We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
JOHN RAWLS'UN SÖZLEŞMECİ TUTUMU.
- Authors
DEMİR, Aysel
- Abstract
In this study, it is critically discussed how John Rawls differs from other contracting thinkers while structuring his own social contract and how valid this contract is. Unlike other thinkers, Rawls, who did not act from a state of nature while putting forward his contract, claimed that conscious individuals in the established state order could choose the principles of justice impartially thanks to the veil of ignorance in the initial situation. He tried to support this statement by claiming that it was based on the thought of categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant. However, unfortunately, at the core of the criticisms made to Rawls; In nature, there are thoughts such as the fact that the hypothetical artificial contract does not have a reality in general, the state of nature is not taken into account in the theory, he cannot completely eliminate utilitarianism while structuring his theory, and the theory of justice as the fairness it reveals is not really a Kantian interpretation. Accordingly, when we evaluate Rawls's theory of justice as fairness within the framework of the social contract, the most important criticism made against him is that although he claims that he produces a real theory of social contract, he cannot actually do it. In this context, the claim that Rawls grounded the social contract he established within an existing state structure is controversial.
- Publication
Academic Journal of Philosophy / Felsefi Düşün, 2022, Issue 19, p173
- ISSN
2148-0958
- Publication type
Article