The Palgrave Macmillan dictionary of political thought

Abstract

ion from all actual social conditions so as to appeal to rationality alone. We suppose a ‘veil of ignorance’ to be drawn over social reality, and we choose from behind this veil the social arrangement that would then be acceptable to all. (The idea here has its roots in *Kant’s categorical imperative.) (iii) The original position is fair, and what is chosen in it is just, since it makes no ungrounded discrimination among members of society. Hence the resulting theory is one of ‘justice as fairness’. (iv) Two principles supposedly emerge from the thought experiment involved in the postulation of an original position. An arrangement is just if and only if (a) each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for all; (b) social and economic inequalities exist only if they are reasonably expected to better the position of the least advantaged, and are attached to offices and positions open to all. Condition (b) is not supposed to apply until (a) is satisfied, and is itself an application of the *difference principle, which will be chosen in the original position because, by virtue of the element of abstraction (ii), rational choice must concern itself with the position of the worst off, whoever he might be. (See *maximin.) The two principles define the just original position; all other arrangements are just to the extent that they can be traced back, via just transactions, to such a position. The resulting theory is worked out in considerable detail, and is interesting partly for its attempt to incorporate results from theories of *rational choice, while being expressly anti-*utilitarian (although some commentators have argued that the theory is in fact very utilitarian, differing largely in the constraints that it imposes on rational choice). It is often criticized (e.g. by *Nozick) for its supposed emphasis on the *end state of a transaction at the expense of the rights that are upheld and abused in the course of a transaction. (See *procedural justice.) Moreover, the status of the theory is unclear. It is not certain that it provides an account of justice that is binding on all rational beings, rather than a rationalization of moral intuitions which may themselves be rationally rejected. Nevertheless, the theory has been highly influential, partly, because of its attempt to reconcile intuitions taken respectively from liberal and from socialist standpoints. reactionary The idea of ‘forces of reaction’ which seek to arrest or reverse the achievements of revolution or reform was introduced into political thought by the philosophical radicals of the nineteenth century. At the time it was normal to identify these forces as the church, the aristocracy, and the institutions of the ancien regime. The term is still the property of the *left, although it has been used by *national socialists and *fascists. A reactionary is anyone who opposes changes that the left desires, or who seeks to re-establish a political order that has been overthrown in the name of left-wing ideals. The implication is usually that such a one merely ‘reacts’ to change and does not initiate change, so that he has no claim to be heard, being without serious recommendations. real terms The value of some variable, such as price or wages, when adjusted for changes in the purchasing power of money. Thus, if my income in money remains unchanged over a year during which inflation runs at 10%, my income in real terms decreases to 100/110 of its initial rate – i.e. by 9%. The ‘real wage’ is given by the money real terms

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 88 citations exist upstream.