- Hardcover: 240 pages
- Publisher: Harvard University Press; illustrated edition edition (1 Jun 2000)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 0674002180
- ISBN-13: 978-0674002180
- Product Dimensions: 24.2 x 16.3 x 2.1 cm
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 2,253,746 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- See Complete Table of Contents
If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
These nine engaging and searching lectures, an unorthodox mixture of intellectual autobiography and philosophical argument, fall into two parts. In the first, [Cohen] describes the leading features of the Marxism in which he once believed. In the second, he explains why he remains critical of the sort of left-wing liberalism that would seem to be Marxism's natural alternative.--Ben Rogers "The Observer "
Product Description
This work presents G.A. Cohen's Gifford Lectures, delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 1996. Focusing on Marxism and Rawlsian liberalism, Cohen draws a connection between these thought systems and the choices that shape a person's life. In the case of Marxism, the relevant life is his own: a communist upbringing in the 1940s in Montreal, which induced a belief in a strongly socialist egalitarian doctrine. The narrative of Cohen's reckoning with that inheritance develops through a series of sophisticated engagements with the central questions of social and political philosophy. In the case of Rawlsian doctrine, Cohen looks to people's lives in general. He argues that egalitarian justice is not only, as Rawlsian liberalism teaches, a matter of rules that define the structure of society, but also a matter of personal attitude and choice. Personal attitude and choice are, moreover, the stuff of which social structure itself is made. Those truths have not informed political philosophy as much as they would, and Cohen's focus on them brings political philosophy closer to moral philosophy, and to the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition, than it has recently been.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Customer Reviews
There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.co.uk.
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
4 reviews
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Cohen, God, Marxism and Liberal Theory
13 July 2003
Format:Paperback
In this book Cohen examines the role of individual behavior in the philosophy of justice. Cohen starts by telling about his own life as a jewish marxist in Montreal, who later became an analytic philosopher in Oxford. He discusses the core beliefs of marxism with a special emphasis on Marx's views on religion. He argues that marxists have neglected issues of justice and issues of individual behavior. The first was neglected because of wrong views on the working class and the illusion that there would be no real tradeoffs under communism. The second was neglected because of Marx's theory of revolutionary change and history. He finds the missing egaliarian ethos of individual behavior in christianity. Hence the importance of the relationship between marxism and religion.
Cohens next step is to show that Rawls difference principle, which he accepts, must hold for individuals too in a just society. He gives very careful rebuttals of views to the contrary. From this he shows that much less inequality is justified by the difference principle than usually believed.
Now that he handled the case of individual behavior in a just society from a Rawlsian point of view, he adresses the question of how one ought to act in an unjust society. Specifically how should egalitarians act in an unegalitarian society? This leads to the question posed in the title and Cohen spends the rest of the book examining different justifications for why rich people don't have to spend most of their income on ending inequality.
The book will be of interest mainly to marxists and people interested in contemporary political philosophy.
13 of 16 people found the following review helpful
Book largely Marxist rehash - but provoking last chapter
23 Jan 2006
Format:Paperback
G.A. Cohen is a reconstructed Marxist - which means he spend much of his time musing over why a socialist utopia hasn't materialised automatically by the dialectical historical process that Marx predicted. Once he has got through several lectures painstakingly working out precisely why this hasn't happened, his material gets more intersting. He offers a powerful critique of the liberalism offered by John Rawls - based on the difference principle which argues that inequalities are justified so long as they benefit the worst off in society. Cohen challenges this view asking why those who are exceptionally well paid for work that is not especially difficult need to earn so much more than their contemporaries, even if their contemporaries don't suffer as a result.
Most interesting of all is the eponymous final chapter which asks whether it is possible for rich people to be egalitarians in their political thought. This investigates the arena of personal obligation in political theory - a largely unexplored area largely untouched by established political writings which tend to focus on theory at the state level. With so many professed egalitarian politicians sending their children to expensive schools, or living in large houses, or engaging in pocket lining business deals, Cohen is right to explore such issues. I hope that the material at the end of this book launches a more extensive debate on the theme, which seems to me to be a significant aspect of contemporary society.
Most interesting of all is the eponymous final chapter which asks whether it is possible for rich people to be egalitarians in their political thought. This investigates the arena of personal obligation in political theory - a largely unexplored area largely untouched by established political writings which tend to focus on theory at the state level. With so many professed egalitarian politicians sending their children to expensive schools, or living in large houses, or engaging in pocket lining business deals, Cohen is right to explore such issues. I hope that the material at the end of this book launches a more extensive debate on the theme, which seems to me to be a significant aspect of contemporary society.
32 of 50 people found the following review helpful
Ultimate Challenge to Liberals, Progressives, and Lefts
20 July 2000
Format:Hardcover
Quite probably one of the best books in political philosophy to emerge in recent decades far outsurpassing Rawls and Nozick's often cited works. In fact these two scholars from Harvard (I believe they are still there), if any, should read this work and then check their bank accounts. Cohen heads straight for the issue confronting contemporary self style liberals or "republicans" in democrat clothing who still speak of economic equality and quasi communitarianism (distributive justice) in today's global economic society so rich with its many "divides" between rich and poor.
The central question comes down to how much people are willing to put their actions and practices where their mouths are, the old cliche of putting one's money where one's mouth is. Cohen elegantly draws the fateful and radical incoherence in the left's incommensurable principles of 1. a just & fair compassionate society and 2. selfish individuals acting in their own interests. Liberals support both by necessity. How do we square these two? How can we demand that society be just economically, that our institutions act altruistically, but on the other hand hold that individuals should be able to act in their own self interest? This is the real dilemma presented by Cohen and I aver that it will take some real time and hard thought to properly answer him on this score. Try turning Ayn Rand into a progressive and you will experience the problem that Cohen presents elegantly in his book. The next book must deal with the implications of all this: do we keep talking like Al Gore but living like the Bushes, or do we give up self interest and create the just society. Liberals want it both ways, Cohen shows they can't have it!
forgive any typos. dms
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
