Rawls vs. Sandel
The argument in my last post is called the communitarian critique of liberalism. It's associated with names like Michael Sandel, Michael Walzer, and Alasdair MacIntyre.
But some intellectual heavyweights disagree. Guys like John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and Thomas Nagel think that the kind of morality that governs social and political institutions is different from the kind of morality that governs personal life. Indeed, those 2 kinds of moralities don't even derive from a common principle. (I think the difference is a result of the powerful collective agency of the state.)
On this argument, Rawls et al. believe that one can defend a liberalism in which women have the right to choose without engaging with the Christian belief that human life begins at conception.
I don't fully understand the Rawls position. Can someone explain it to me?
But some intellectual heavyweights disagree. Guys like John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin, and Thomas Nagel think that the kind of morality that governs social and political institutions is different from the kind of morality that governs personal life. Indeed, those 2 kinds of moralities don't even derive from a common principle. (I think the difference is a result of the powerful collective agency of the state.)
On this argument, Rawls et al. believe that one can defend a liberalism in which women have the right to choose without engaging with the Christian belief that human life begins at conception.
I don't fully understand the Rawls position. Can someone explain it to me?
posted by Garrett at 12:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home