Political Theory Still A Debate About Plato Versus Aristotle

City Journal:

“Justice, justice shalt thou pursue,” commands the Book of Deuteronomy. But for American political philosophers, it is not so much justice as A Theory of Justice that is the object of pursuit. Since John Rawls published that seminal book in 1971, its ideas and language have exercised an extraordinary hold on the imagination of political thinkers. Just look at Justice by Michael J. Sandel and The Idea of Justice by Amartya Sen—two books, coincidentally appearing at the same moment, by leading political philosophers, both of them professors at Harvard (as Rawls was). Justice is the more accessible work, based on Sandel’s popular introductory course in Harvard’s Core Curriculum, while The Idea of Justice is more ambitious, treating a range of theoretical and practical problems in political economy. Yet both books are, at heart, responses to and revisions of Rawls, and their titles deliberately allude to Rawls’s magnum opus. Just as the nineteenth-century critics of Hegel were still known as Young Hegelians, so these critics of Rawls are essentially post-Rawlsians.

Yeah, as demonstrated by the biblical quotation, questions of justice go back a bit further than Mr. Rawls.
Republic, Book I:

Well said, Cephalus, I replied; but as concerning justice, what is it?

Rawls conflates fairness with justice, which is a big problem. Nevertheless, FLG will concede that Rawls influence on theories supporting liberalism is huge. Not surprisingly, FLG, considers it a continuation in the debate between Plato and Aristotle.

So, to recap very, very broadly, Plato was concerned about the Good. We live in a cave, and must use our reason and intellect to escape the cave. This material world is inferior to the timeless world of the Forms and the Good. In response, Aristotle, said that's great. Nice idea, but we can't see, measure, or touch the world of the Forms, so let's concern ourselves with Nature. We can see and feel Nature.

Rawls, again FLG realizes that he's oversimplifying here, takes the allegory of the cave and inverts it. Plato wants the philosopher to take himself outside of the cave to see Truth. Truth is outside our material world and can only be reached using reason. Rawls takes Aristotle's response to its furthest logical conclusion. The important world is not the one we can't see, but the one we can see. In fact, rather than trying to escape this world to see the Truth contained elsewhere, we need to escape this world and look back at the cave through a veil of ignorance to see the Truth of this world.