Läser i Prospect Magazine en recension av en ny bok om John Rawls, och påminns om varför jag en gång själv lade Rawls åt sidan i mitt sökande efter rättviseprinciper:

precisely because Chandler invites us to reckon with a richer rather than a reductive Rawls, the theory becomes a hazy practical guide, tricky to operationalise. We learn that Rawls talked vaguely about the bottom half of all earners being the "most disadvantaged", so who, exactly, are we to put first? Given his special focus on paid work, how are we to factor in the claims of the unemployed, carers and workless disabled people, who are often the poorest of all? After we’ve clocked that Rawls wants to prioritise not the incomes of the disadvantaged but the fuzzier and less-measurable goal of their "life chances", how can we expect his tests to settle thorny policy dilemmas?

Boken i fråga: Free and Equal: What Would a Fair Society Look Like? av Daniel Chandler

Recensent: Tom Clark