authors:
- Geuss, Raymond
content: 'A short, hard-hitting critique of ideal political theory as exemplified
  by Robert Nozick and John Rawls. Raymond Geuss has a number of, in my mind, valid
  points about the inherent problems with attempting to base morality and political
  theory on a small set (ideally one single) value or principle. Human social relations
  are so complex that claiming that e.g. "justice as fairness" can somehow be designated
  as the first virtue of social institutions (Rawls), or that simply stating as axiomatic
  the idea that "individuals have rights" (Nozick), cannot possibly capture all that
  is important or interesting about human social existence.


  Geuss delivers some pretty drastic statements, and acknowledges that his task in
  this text is purely negative, i.e. critical. He does not present any political theory
  of his own. That is fine, except that I think his arguments are actually too strong
  because of this. They preclude many other possible political theories that are not
  as conceptually simple as Rawls or Nozick, and I think this is a mistake. Inherent
  in his approach is the idea that all morality is historically contingent, and I
  believe this is a mistake. There are many moral ideas that can be found among virtually
  all human societies, albeit in various constellations and combinations. Although
  the social morality may not be as simple as Nozick or Rawls presumes, neither may
  it be so arbitrary as Geuss seems to think.'
date: '2021-12-09'
edition:
  published: '2008'
  publisher: Princeton University Press
goodreads: '5588817'
html: '<p>A short, hard-hitting critique of ideal political theory as exemplified
  by Robert Nozick and John Rawls. Raymond Geuss has a number of, in my mind, valid
  points about the inherent problems with attempting to base morality and political
  theory on a small set (ideally one single) value or principle. Human social relations
  are so complex that claiming that e.g. &quot;justice as fairness&quot; can somehow
  be designated as the first virtue of social institutions (Rawls), or that simply
  stating as axiomatic the idea that &quot;individuals have rights&quot; (Nozick),
  cannot possibly capture all that is important or interesting about human social
  existence.</p>

  <p>Geuss delivers some pretty drastic statements, and acknowledges that his task
  in this text is purely negative, i.e. critical. He does not present any political
  theory of his own. That is fine, except that I think his arguments are actually
  too strong because of this. They preclude many other possible political theories
  that are not as conceptually simple as Rawls or Nozick, and I think this is a mistake.
  Inherent in his approach is the idea that all morality is historically contingent,
  and I believe this is a mistake. There are many moral ideas that can be found among
  virtually all human societies, albeit in various constellations and combinations.
  Although the social morality may not be as simple as Nozick or Rawls presumes, neither
  may it be so arbitrary as Geuss seems to think.</p>

  '
isbn: '9780691137889'
language: en
lastmod: '2021-12-09'
path: /library/geuss-2008.html
published: '2008'
rating: 3
reference: Geuss 2008
reviewed: '2021-12-09'
subjects:
- liberalism
- morality
- political-philosophy
title: Philosophy and Real Politics
type: book
year: 2008