1 / 35

Justice as Politics

Justice as Politics History of Political Thought Spring 2006 Central Claim Reaching agreement on basic principles of justice is a political rather than a philosophical act.

adamdaniel
Download Presentation

Justice as Politics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Justice as Politics History of Political Thought Spring 2006

  2. Central Claim • Reaching agreement on basic principles of justice is a political rather than a philosophical act. • Nonetheless, it is always better to count heads than to break them, so it’s worthwhile to try to reach peaceful resolution of our disputes.

  3. Justice as Politics: Overview • 1. Three Levels of Political Discourse • 2. Politics of Justice • 3. Justice as Politics

  4. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Level 1 Provides answers to “Deep” questions concerning the basics of political life: For example: • What is justice? • Do rights exist?

  5. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Level 2 Supplies the content to the concepts agreed upon in Level One For example: If rights exist, what rights do we possess?

  6. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Level 3 Identifies the specific applications of the content agreed to in Level 2 For example:If we have right to practice any religion we choose, can I open the First Church of the Holy Herb?

  7. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Level Three Level Two Level One

  8. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Level Three Level Two Level One

  9. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Level Three Level Two Level One

  10. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Level Three Which raises the question … Level Two Level One

  11. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate How do we reach agreement at each of these levels? Level Three Level Two Level One

  12. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Persuasion? Level Three Occassionally that can be successful Level Two For example: Slavery? American independence? Level One

  13. I. 3 Levels of Political Debate Persuasion? Coercion! Level Three Level Two Level One

  14. II. Politics of Justice • Which view eventually triumphs will be a function of political might rather than of philosophical rigor. • Political “might” or “coercion” need not rest entirely on physical force • Other sources of coercion?

  15. II. Politics of Justice • Political Power has a variety of components: • Physical power • Economic power • Psychological power

  16. II. Politics of Justice • In a domestic political context, psychological power is likely the most important and most powerful • But in an international context, it is the least powerful • Psychological power rests on agreements at Level One and Level Two

  17. II. Politics of Justice • In our search for international justice, economic and military power become the main tools to coerce compliance to a given standard of justice • For example: Turkey and the E.U. Iran & WMD

  18. II. Politics of Justice • Survey different political systems at different historical periods we see different theories of justice at work

  19. II. Politics of Justice • If justice had an objective basis – that is, if our understanding of justice could be separated from a political context – we should by now see similar conceptions of justice adopted and applied

  20. II. Politics of Justice • Whatever international norms that may exist, owe their existence to political might • United Nations? • International Law? • Human Rights?

  21. II. Politics of Justice • For Example: Al-Qaeda vs. The U.S. • Each group articulates a coherent theory of justice • Each theory of justice is at odds with the other • Resolution of the dispute…

  22. II. Politics of Justice

  23. II. Politics of Justice

  24. II. Politics of Justice • Bush and bin-Laden did not debate the virtues of American liberalism vs. those of Islamic fundamentalism

  25. II. Politics of Justice • They could not debate because they did not share a common political language • In the absence of that shared vocabulary, politics takes precedence over rhetoric or rationality

  26. III. Justice as Politics • What implications follow from this understanding of justice? • That is, if justice is a function of politics, does that mean that justice as such no longer exists or loses its power? • Can we no longer condemn acts that violate our understanding of justice?

  27. III. Justice as Politics • Short answer, no • Our failure to arrive at an objective standard for our normative claims – to settle Level One and Level Two issues – is not necessarily catastrophic

  28. III. Justice as Politics • We need to appreciate justice – the rules of our political life – the same way we appreciate the rules of baseball

  29. III. Justice as Politics • Politics and our political institutions function like the baseball establishment: • That is, they provide the rules by which the game should be played and they have the power to enforce compliance

  30. III. Justice as Politics • When groups seek to challenge our political rules – whether they be criminals, terrorists, or other governments, we may use the political resources we have to enforce and defend those rules …

  31. III. Justice as Politics

  32. IV. Conclusion • In The Politics, Aristotle defines the human species as the zoon politikon or the political animal • Too often we focus on the noun and forget the adjective

  33. IV. Conclusion • We are political animals. • While we may lack a transcendent basis for our moral and political beliefs, we do have a forum for defining those beliefs and the institutions for enforcing deviation and defection from those beliefs

  34. IV. Conclusion • We may condemn from a variety of moral perspectives those social and political practices we find objectionable, But…

  35. IV. Conclusion • Those practices won’t change unless and until our condemnations inspire political action

More Related