December 12, 2006 9:13AM # Rawls and the ‘Greatest Philosopher of the Past Few Centuries’ By [Thomas A. Firey](https://www.cato.org/people/thomas-firey) --- SHARE I’ve been reading the discussion of [John Rawls](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) by Will ([here](https://www.cato.org/2006/12/06/why-rawls-is-great/) and [here](https://www.cato.org/2006/12/11/rawls-and-classical-liberalism-as-a-public-philosophy/)) and Sigrid ([here](https://www.cato.org/2006/12/11/why-rawls-is-devoid-of-moral-perspective/) and [here](https://www.cato.org/2006/12/11/one-more-thought-on-rawls/)), as well as the [Richard Epstein tribute](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-epstein112702.asp) to Rawls that Will quotes in his first post. Rawls’ theory, I think, suffers from the fatal flaw that his “justice as fairness” ideal, and the “veil of ignorance” experiment that embodies it, could support a very broad range of moral/​political systems. The imperatives Rawls derives from his machinery are just one of many sets that it could produce. *[A Theory of Justice](http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781/sr=8-1/qid=1165887298/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8661718-9757600?ie=UTF8&s=books)* seems a sort of moral Rorschach test; in its pages, almost any reader can see whatever political system he or she prefers. Consider what Epstein writes in his *NRO* tribute: “Rawls’s framework could easily and sensibly be pressed into service by those who had more utilitarian objectives.” In [*Beyond Good and Evil*](http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Evil-Prelude-Philosophy/dp/0679724656/sr=1-1/qid=1165887464/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8661718-9757600?ie=UTF8&s=books)*,* [Friedrich Nietzsche](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche) (who gets my vote as the greatest philosopher of the last 200 years) offers this critique of philosophers’ use of elaborate theoretical machinery to support their moral theories: > They all pose as if they had discovered and reached their real opinions through the self-development of a cold, pure, divinely unconcerned dialectic (as opposed to the mystics of every rank, who are more honest and doltish—and talk of “inspiration”); while at bottom it is an assumption, a hunch, indeed a kind of “inspiration”—most often a desire of the heart that has been filtered and made abstract—that they defend with reasons they have sought after the fact. (*BG&E*, Aph. 5; Kaufmann’s translation) Few people today read Nietzsche, and even fewer read him well. If you’re a libertarian who’s into Ayn Rand, treat yourself to a copy of Nietzsche’s *[Genealogy of Morals](http://www.amazon.com/Genealogy-Morals-Ecce-Homo/dp/0679724621/sr=1-1/qid=1165887628/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8661718-9757600?ie=UTF8&s=books)*. And to answer Will’s other survey question: The Beatles. Not even close. [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).