The take-up of Rawls’ theory of the good in philosophy of education

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
John White
{"title":"The take-up of Rawls’ theory of the good in philosophy of education","authors":"John White","doi":"10.1177/14778785211060128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Personal well-being is a central concept in philosophical discussions of education and its aims. Although the work of general philosophers like Nussbaum, Griffin, Raz and Sen on the topic has been influential here, there has been next-to-no interest among philosophers of education in John Rawls’s work on ‘the good’ – in great contrast to interest in his work on ‘the right’, and despite the key place that his theory of the good has in his Theory of Justice (TJ), Chapter 7. This paper explores a likely reason for this lack of interest. This is connected with Rawls’s 1942 undergraduate thesis on the meaning of sin and faith. While there are many continuities between this – eg. to do with communitarianism and equality – and the theory of the right in TJ, there are none in the area of the good, since the thesis rejected the notion for theological reasons. In writing TJ, therefore, having long abandoned his Christian belief, Rawls had a rich background of earlier work on the right which he was able to work up into a powerful argument, while in the area of the good he had to start from scratch. The result, drawing on Josiah Royce’s ideas about plans of life, is disappointing and open to fairly obvious objections. In the light of this, it is not surprising that Rawls’s views on the good have had so little influence in philosophy of education.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785211060128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Personal well-being is a central concept in philosophical discussions of education and its aims. Although the work of general philosophers like Nussbaum, Griffin, Raz and Sen on the topic has been influential here, there has been next-to-no interest among philosophers of education in John Rawls’s work on ‘the good’ – in great contrast to interest in his work on ‘the right’, and despite the key place that his theory of the good has in his Theory of Justice (TJ), Chapter 7. This paper explores a likely reason for this lack of interest. This is connected with Rawls’s 1942 undergraduate thesis on the meaning of sin and faith. While there are many continuities between this – eg. to do with communitarianism and equality – and the theory of the right in TJ, there are none in the area of the good, since the thesis rejected the notion for theological reasons. In writing TJ, therefore, having long abandoned his Christian belief, Rawls had a rich background of earlier work on the right which he was able to work up into a powerful argument, while in the area of the good he had to start from scratch. The result, drawing on Josiah Royce’s ideas about plans of life, is disappointing and open to fairly obvious objections. In the light of this, it is not surprising that Rawls’s views on the good have had so little influence in philosophy of education.
罗尔斯“善”理论在教育哲学中的运用
个人福祉是教育及其目标的哲学讨论的中心概念。尽管像努斯鲍姆、格里芬、拉兹和森这样的普通哲学家在这个话题上的工作在这里很有影响力,但教育哲学家对约翰·罗尔斯关于“善”的工作几乎没有兴趣——这与对他关于“权利”的工作的兴趣形成鲜明对比,尽管他的“善”理论在他的《正义理论》(TJ)第7章中占有关键地位。本文探讨了这种缺乏兴趣的可能原因。这与罗尔斯1942年关于罪与信仰的意义的本科论文有关。虽然这两者之间有许多延续性。与社群主义和平等有关——以及《正义与正义》中的权利理论,在善的领域中没有,因为论文出于神学原因拒绝了这个概念。因此,在写TJ的时候,罗尔斯早已放弃了他的基督教信仰,他有丰富的关于权利的早期工作背景,他能够将这些背景整理成一个强有力的论点,而在善的领域,他不得不从零开始。结果是,借鉴了约西亚·罗伊斯关于生命计划的观点,令人失望,并受到相当明显的反对。有鉴于此,罗尔斯关于善的观点对教育哲学的影响如此之小也就不足为奇了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Theory and Research in Education
Theory and Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Theory and Research in Education, formerly known as The School Field, is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes theoretical, empirical and conjectural papers contributing to the development of educational theory, policy and practice.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信