Both Paul and I have a liking for Rawls, and he actually understood it when we studied it, I merely scraped a pass. It's nice therefore to see he still gets mentioned in discussions, this time on Consider Phlebas:
That would seem to have not just radically generally anti-Rawlsian but also radically anti-democratic implications, because it would cut the link between a legitimate government and some form of consent to it by refusing to acknowledge there was anything that needed to be consented to.Paul, care to give Robert an opinion?
1 comment:
Opinion given. Rawls actually has a clear if slightly too idealistic response to that criticism, but I've tried to explain it as best I can over at CP.
Post a Comment