This is philosophy bites with me David Edmonds and me Nigel Warburton.

Philosophy bites is available at www

philosophy bites.com. In Harvard in the second half of the 20th century two political philosophers reached

apparently diametrically opposed conclusions about how society should

be governed. Their theories remain deeply influential. John Rall said that the just society

would be the one governed by principals would agree to if we didn't know what position in society

we occupied. Principles chosen from behind what he famously termed the veil of ignorance.

Robert Nozik, by contrast, was a libertarian.

Nozik thought only a minimal state was warranted, and the state had no right to interfere with any agreements freely made by individuals,

even if such agreements led to massive inequality.

The conclusions of both men have tended to be interpreted by their disciples as universal as applying to all societies.

And the works of both men put little emphasis on history, on the origins of terms which pepper

their writings, terms like justice, the social contract, rights.

In his book Philosophy and Real Politics, Raymond Goyce argues that Rals and Nozick did at least have one

thing in common, their profoundly misguided approach.

Raymond Goyes, welcome to Philosophy Bites.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

The topic we're going to focus on today is the relationship between political philosophy and history.

Many philosophers begin their work on political philosophy with a kind of abstract notion of what

a human being is and then come up with a theory that seems almost

independent of history. Do you think that's a good way of going about it?

My own view on how to do political philosophy was very much influenced by a reading of Marx, of the early Marx. And I was particularly

...