IGX

The book is Rawls’ lecture notes for his introductory course at Harvard on moral philosophy. Rawls is one of the leading philosophers of the 20th century. His Theory of Justice, later revised as Political Liberalism set forth a rational basis for communicating ideas in a democracy with different political and religious beliefs so as to achieve a consensus on a rational and reasonable view. Among his most-lasting ideas is the notion of trying to reason behind a veil of ignorance where you wouldn’t know your position in a society - - rich, poor, black, white, rich, poor, christian, jew, etc, and you would try to reason to what is most just.

Rawls uses Kant’s ideas of moral philosophy as a basis for reasoning and believing that reason can lead to moral answers. And he uses Hegel’s ideas of situating ideas in a political society to bridge how one gets from individual moral decision-making to societal moral decision making.

His lectures at Harvard focused intensively on Hume (who looked more to sentiment or intuition as a basis for moral thinking), Kant and Hegel, and exploring very carefully what they meant, digging behind their words, trying to fill in gaps or ambiguities in their thinking to give the strongest version of their views. He also covers some of the utilitarians, Spinoza, and Leibniz.

Even if you have some background in Hume or Kant or philosophy generally, these books are very difficult. But they definitely give you a sense of what it meant to take a philosophy course at Harvard from one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century.

Hume thought morality was simply a sensation. (This, and his statements about Christianity, upset people.) Kant's "moral imperative" stuff struck me as much less logical than Hume's work moral philosophy. Hume was at least starting from the observation that people "felt" moral outrage, etc. The stuff I've read of Kant's was basically a stodgy, long-winded version of "morality is what I have defined it to be".

So, I don't like Rawls' Kantian bent, but I do think the "veil of ignorance" is something that's sadly missing from political discourse (because 99.9% of voters aren't capable of it).

But that's all an aside. This sounds like a worthwhile read. Thanks for the review.

I remember reading Theory of Justice a few years back. My impression was that if you don't accept his assumptions about human nature, and of absolute goods, the rest falls apart. If you accept his assumptions, it's worth taking very seriously. He does write well though, and his lectures sound like worthwhile reading.

I do my own morality. Fuck them guys and their Harvard.