This Companion centers on the fictitious social contract that can be used to justify liberalism. As justification, the theory of the contract either fully justifies a regime as liberal or it fully condemns it as illiberal. This conflicts with the common recognition that liberalism is a matter of degree. John Rawls is taken as the leading light; yet at best the Companion manages to picture him as well-intended but hopelessly confusing.
AgassiJoseph. 1986. “Towards a Canonic Version of Classical Political Theory.” In Spinoza and the Sciences, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by GreneMarjorieNailsDebra, vol. 91, 153-70. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
McSheaRobert J.1963. “Leo Strauss on Machiavelli.” The Western Political Quarterly16:782-97.
18.
NashLaura L.1990. Good Intentions Aside: A Manager’s Guide to Resolving Ethical Problems. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
19.
NiebuhrReinhold. 1932. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics. New York: Scribner.
20.
O’LearyBrendan. 1994. “On the Nature of Nationalism: An Appraisal of Ernest Gellner’s Writing on Nationalism.” In Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities. The Social Philosophy of Ernest Gellner, edited by HallJohn A.JarvieIan C., vol. 48, 71-112. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
21.
PopperKarl R.1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge.
22.
RawlsJohn. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
23.
RawlsJohn. 1997. “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” University of Chicago Law Review64:765-807.
24.
Rosenstein-RodanPaul N.1981. The New International Economic Order: Relations between the Haves and Have-Nots (North-South). Boston: International Economic Relations, Boston University.
25.
SassowerRaphael. 1995. “Intellectual Responsibility for an Ecology Agenda.”Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology1:74-82.
