COHEN’S CRITIQUE OF RAWLSIANISM AND THE PROBLEMS OF OCCUPATIONAL AUTONOMY AND EFFICIENCY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1517-0128.v2i25p90-107Keywords:
Cohen, Rawls, Justice, Occupational Freedom, EfficiencyAbstract
This article addresses G. A. Cohen’s critique of Rawlsianism. Departing from the usual view, I argue that Cohen’s critique is compatible with an ideal of just society in which talented citizens enjoy occupational autonomy. The problem with an egalitarianism of Cohen’s style is to conciliate equality and efficiency.Downloads
References
CASAL, Paula. “Occupational choice and the egalitarian ethos”. Economics and Philosophy, v. 29, p. 3-20, 2013.
COHEN, G. A. Rescuing justice and equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.
MORIARTY, Jeffrey. “Rawls, self-respect, and the opportunity for meaningful work”. Social Theory and Practice, v. 35, n. 3, p. 441-459, 2009.
O’NEILL, Martin. “Three Rawlsian routes towards economic democracy”. Revue de Philosophie Économique, v. 8, n. 2, p. 29-55, 2008.
POGGE, Thomas W. “On the site of distributive justice: reflections on Cohen and Murphy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, v. 29, n. 2, p. 137-169, 2000.
RAWLS, John. A theory of justice. ed. rev. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1999.
SHIFFRIN, Seana Valentine. “Incentives, motives, and talents”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, v. 38, n. 2, p. 111-142, 2010.
TITELBAUM, Michael G. “What would a Rawlsian ethos of justice look like?”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, v. 36, n. 3, p. 289-322, 2008.
WILLIAMS, Andrew. “Incentives, inequality, and publicity”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, v. 27, n. 3, p. 225-247, 1998.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Leandro Martins Zanitelli
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
