Submitted by Dr. Arthur Kyriazis, Jan 23, 2008 08:52

Prof. Smith misunderstands the posthumously published lectures of Prof. Rawls. These are merely his lecture notes which accompanied Philosophy 171, which was an introductory philosophy class open to any undergraduate with at least one semester of philosophy at Harvard.

Consequently, of course, the material is somewhat oversimplified and not geared at all to the graduate level seminar.

All of the criticisms which Prof. Smith levels are basically that the material is not sophisticated enough, and that it ignores religion.

Both criticisms fail. First, as someone who took the course, I can state unequivocally that the published lecture notes do not come close to approximating what it was like to actually take a class with Prof. Rawls or to study with his section men, to write papers for him or to get feedback from him. He was charming, low-key, modest, spoke and lectured with a mild lisp, and was anything but what you would imagine an arrogant harvard professor to be. Second, the course was really about the Kantian foundations of the theory. While the original position and contract theory are imporant, and minimax/maximin are important, and while Rawls took time to explain various issues with the theory, he really took the most time in his course to go over Kantian ethics as compared and contrasted with utilitiarianism as expounded by Sidgwick..

Finally, on a personal note, while I have great respect for Oakeshott, Berlin and Leo Strauss (especially Leo Strauss), there is little question in my mind that Rawls' work and legacy dwarfs the work and legacy of Oakeshott, Berlin and Strauss collectively and individually. Rawls' project is neither nostalgic nor indifferent to the incoherencies of religion, ethnicity and nationalism; rather, it is a dedicated deontological project intended to prove that the right is separate and apart from the good, and that rights are important even if they cost us time, money and efficiency.

It seems to me that this is a point worth making especially in our fervent post 9/11 environment when nearly every politician is caught up in utilitiarian argumentts for the wholesale sacrifice of the rights of liberty, privacy and equality in favor of the good of the many. This is precisely the kind of argument that a Rawlsian would be well-trained to reject on the grounds that it violates the right even if it is to the benefit of the good, and clearly would violate the sense of the original position and the two principles of justice.

--dr arthur kyriazis
akbiotech@comcast.net

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.