Talk:Justice as Fairness

Article Class
I've nominated this page for reconsideration. Thedaggerz (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

not quite
"and to the greatest benefit of the least well-off members of society."

That is not quite right: his idea is that everyone is free to do as they wish toward improving their own position provided this does not make the least well-off any worse off. Pepper 150.203.227.130 12:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"those who have be favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation who have lost out" i believe that while it is maybe not completely correctly worded, the idea of the most benefit to the least advantaged is correct. Keakster 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Keakster is correct. It literally says "... They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society." I don't know how to add the reference, but I'll type it here in the hopes that someone else may do it. (It seems like the content of the whole Justice as Fairness -article is from pages 5-6 in Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-05248-0 Toni K

As Keakster pointed out, the difference principle is stated incorrectly in the article. Here is a reputable online resource that backs up this claim: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Difference I've fixed it and cited that source --Beala (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

is it a concept or a title?
Why is Justice as Fairness capitalized and italicized in the lede? —Tamfang (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of both. I clarified it a bit.Greg Bard (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job. —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Downgraded from 'B' to 'C' class
Regrettably, I've had to downgrade the article from 'B' to 'C' class; since the article was rated as 'B' class back in February 2011, the article has lost cohesion as a result of a few changes. For instance, there was a sentence in the section on the second principle that was expecting a quote, but had lost it. There were a few other minor things that I've tidied up for now, but I feel that the article needs more work to regain cohesion and on incorporating citations into footnotes (there are a number of references not clearly represented in the footnotes, such Avineri, S. and de-Shalit, A. (ed.) (1992)). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)