The Journal of Ethics

, 15:227

Interpreting Rawls: An Essay on Audard, Freeman, and Pogge


DOI: 10.1007/s10892-010-9078-7

Cite this article as:
Richardson, H.S. J Ethics (2011) 15: 227. doi:10.1007/s10892-010-9078-7


This review essay on three recent books on John Rawls’s theory of justice, by Catherine Audard, Samuel Freeman, and Thomas Pogge, describes the great boon they offer serious students of Rawls. They form a united front in firmly and definitively rebuffing Robert Nozick’s libertarian critique, Michael Sandel’s communitarian critique, and more generally critiques of “neutralist liberalism,” as well as in affirming the basic unity of Rawls’s position. At a deeper level, however, they diverge, and in ways that, this essay suggests, go astray on subtle questions of interpretation: Freeman overemphasizes reciprocity, Pogge miscasts Rawls as a consequentialist, and Audard exaggerates the Kantian aspect of Rawls’s core, continuing commitment to “doctrinal autonomy.”


Rawls, JohnAudard, CatherineFreeman, SamuelPogge, ThomasJusticeReciprocityConsequentialismAutonomy

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA