作为公平的正义
Justice as Fairness
John Rawls · 初版 1958 年
3人推荐
7位读者提及
9次提及
本书源于Rawls在20世纪80年代定期在哈佛大学讲授的一门政治哲学课程的讲义。随着时间推移，这些讲义逐渐演变为对他作为公平的正义理论的重述，并根据他较新的论文和专著Political Liberalism（1993）进行了修订。Rawls全面概述了他的主要思想脉络，并探讨了以往任何著作中从未涉及的具体问题。他清醒地意识到，自1971年A Theory of Justice出版以来，美国社会已经越来越偏离作为公平的正义理念。然而他的思想
Hacker News 上怎么说
正在加载完整评论……
……我们可能比200年前更接近它，但还没完全实现。无论如何，绝对的平均主义大概是不可能的。不过关于这个主题有一本绝佳的著作，可以看看约翰·罗尔斯（John Rawls）的《作为公平的正义》（Justice as Fairness）。在政治哲学类文本里，它对圈外人来说算相当好懂了，而且对这个话题的阐述也很全面。
…we may be closer to it than we were 200 years ago, but we're not there yet. In anycase, perfect egalitarianism is probably not possible. But for an excellent work on the subject, see John Rawls' work Justice as Fairness. As political philosophical texts go, it's fairly accessible to outsiders to the field, and it is comprehensive on the topic.
如果你手里还有一本《正义论》（A Theory of Justice），绝对值得重新翻出来读读。如果你想啃完他晚年的作品，那你可以去读《政治自由主义》（Political Liberalism）和《作为公平的正义：正义新论》（Justice as Fairness: A Restatement），他在里面重温了自己的最初构想，并完整阐述了他后来所理解的“作为公平的正义”。绝对推荐重新深入研究一下他的理论。
If you still have a copy of A Theory of Justice, definitely pick it back up. If you'd like to work through his later-life work, then you'll want to grab Political Liberalism and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, in which he revisits his original ideas, and brings together a full account of justice as fairness as he later understood it. Definitely recommend digging back into him.
政治哲学里有一本很棒的书讲的差不多就是这个话题，叫约翰·罗尔斯的《作为公平的正义》（Justice as Fairness）。[0] 顺着我们这个对话的思路，他并不反对不平等，而且跳出了资本主义与共产主义的二元对立框架。相反，他提出了不平等在何种限制条件下……
There's a great book on pretty much this topic in political philosophy, called Justice as Fairness by John Rawls. [0] In the vein of this conversation, he does not argue against inequality, and breaks out of the capitalism/communist spectrum. Instead he proposed the strictures under which inequality…
大部分评论似乎都在讨论税收的好处/道德性，而不是巴菲特的核心观点。顺着关于税收价值的讨论说，我觉得约翰·罗尔斯的《作为公平的正义》（Justice as Fairness）特别有启发。(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness) 本质上，一个正义的社会所做出的决策应当让社会中最弱势的群体获益。考虑到大多数……
Majority of the comments seem to be discussing the merits / morality of taxation, rather than Buffet's central points. Entertaining the discussion on the merits of taxation, I've found John Rawls' Justice as Fairness to be especially enlightening. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness) Essentially, a just society is one in which decisions are made to benefit the worst-off in society. Given a majority…
……“正义”比其他任何东西都更偏向于“公平”。在无知之幕后，我所主张的原则极有可能反倒对自己不利。确实，罗尔斯把他的原则写成“作为公平的正义”（Justice as Fairness）是有原因的。
…"justice" more "fairness" than anything else. There exist principles I would advocate from behind these veil that would be in most likelihood disfavorable against me. Indeed, Rawls write his principles as "Justice as Fairness" for a reason.
……很好奇除了在所有人之间做简单求和式的公式计算之外，还有哪些替代理论能实现最大善意？作为诸多替代方案之一，你可以看看罗尔斯的著作（尤其是《作为公平的正义》，还有早期的《正义论》），这些著作提出了一种考虑不同个体和群体处境的方法，而不是去优化一个求和式的方程（除非你把“求和式”……
…curious as to what are some alternate theories of how to do the most good besides a summing-like equation across individuals? See, as one of many alternatives, Rawls works (perhaps most particularly Justice as Fairness, but also the earlier A Theory of Justice) which present an approach which considers the position of different individuals and groups, but does not optimize a summing-like equation (unless you take "summing-like"…