yes Flashcards
what is social justice?
how can society be just/unjust
how can the state legitimately coerce?
what is ideal theory?
idea principles that should guide society
who conceptualizes justice as fairness and who conceptualised justice as entitlement?
justice as fairness -> Rawls
justice as entitlement -> Nozick
what is the conception of justice as ‘the right’ vs ‘the good’?
the right -> means/procedure (set of principles)
the good -> ends/utility/happiness
how are justice and morality related?
justice is a subset of morality (some things are morally good but not a part of justice)
what is Hayek’s view on justice?
- no such thing as social justice -> category mistake
- only people can be just/unjust (vs. society)
- market on its own will produce fair outcomes (vs. state action of ‘justice’)
what is Rawl’s view on justice?
- can only be just if people act without self-interest sp -> principles of justice should be chosen behind a veil of ignorance
- hypothetical contract/consent under the veil of ignorance > actual consent w/o veil of ignorance
- would end up choosing:
- basic liberties for all
- b inequalities are still under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
- a inequalities benefit the worst off (incentive) (difference principle)
what is the veil of ignorance?
- no knowledge of ascryptive characteristics (social position and talent)
- no knowledge of own conception of the good (values)
what is Nozick’s view on justice?
- justice = protect private property (holdings)
- freedom = being able to do what you want with those holdings
- seperatness of persons (recognize a person’s talent and achievements as their own) -> so no taxation
- must own something justly through acquisition, transfer or rectification
what is the desert view on justice?
getting what one deserves
- follows logic of the market - based on tastes
- choices (e.g. effort) makes a difference
- natural talent: arbitrary (doesn’t count/unfair)
What is the general and brief republican view on liberty?
freedom: self-governing political community (vs. despotism)
What is the general and brief liberal view on liberty?
freedom: protection of property of individuals (vs. interference of others)
What is the general and brief idealist view on liberty?
freedom: autonomous, follows on desires and beliefs (internal forces)
what is Berlin’s negative liberty?
freedom: minimum space free from interference (coercion = deliberately inflicted by humans) for individuals
what is Berlin’s positive liberty?
- autonomy = possibility of self-mastery of
2. higher (universal rational) and lower self (immediate pleasures)
how does Berlin see positive liberty being problematic?
can lead to totalitarianism (despotism) or self-abnegation
- if allow for divided (lower/higher) self -> you may think someone else knows better than yourself what is better for you (since higher self rationality is universal) and can separate your higher vs lower self (whereas you can’t) -> totalitarianism
- fictions of autonomy: social encasement -> pursuit of unattainable full autonomy -> desire for recognition/status/community -> forfeit of freedom
- if not totalitarianism then self-abnegation: eliminate lower-self completely -> “retreat into the inner citadel” -> self-effacing (not freedom)
what is the difference between effective and formal freedom?
effective -> capacity to do it
formal -> no law prohibits you from doing it
what is the difference between ‘freedom as autonomy’ and ‘freedom as executing the will’?
freedom as autonomy: is there a true and authentic self?
-> dangerous by legitimating collective higher self
freedom as executing the will: capability?
what is the difference between ‘freedom as pol participation’ and ‘freedom from law’
freedom as pol participation: freedom when we make our own laws -> non-domination (republicanism)
freedom from law: freedom when the law ends (liberal)
what is Pettit’s view on liberty? (republicanism)
- republicanism
- new type of liberty: non-domination from arbitrary mastery (vs law)
what is Dworkin’s view on equality? (luck egalitarianism)
luck egalitarianism
- argues against welfare; for market economy
- balance utility and equality -> tolerate less than perfect equality to improve average utility
- “hypothetical auction” to determine what is more valuable to who + hypothetical insurance scheme that if inequality is based on bad luck (vs. bad choices) then can share
- option vs brute luck
- so ambition sensitive but endowment insensitive
what is the difference between option luck and brute luck
option luck: choices (that may turn out bad)
brute luck: no choice (that may turn out bad)
what are other forms of equality than just redistribution?
- recognition (social relations) (feminism, self-respect, community)
- positional goods (goods that can’t be redistributed (e.g. uni education)
what is utilitarian?
maximising total utility (aggregative effect focus)
what is prioritarianism?
those who need it get it first
According to Auineri, De-Shalit and Kymlicka’s why does community matter?
- dedication to the social good -> the social thesis
- common good -> commitment to polity -> willing to redistribute (otherwise undermines whole liberal project)
- legitimation crisis: citizens asked to sacrifice more for justice but share less with those are they are sacrificing for
- social glue
- communitarian approach: common way of life
- liberal nationalist approach: common nationhood
- civic republican approach: political participation
what is liberal nationalism?
- making nationalism liberal
- co-nationals: bond of solidarity and desire to self-gov
- or use group rights to protect communities
what are some of the communitarian criticisms of liberalism?
- liberals assume people are selfish (egotism)
- liberals advocate a minimal state
- liberals prioritize rights > duties/responsibilities
- liberals believe values are subjective
- liberals neglect how individuals are socially constructed
- liberals undervalue communal relations, shared beliefs and identity
- liberals wrongly think the state should be neutral
According to Dahl, how is equality manifest in democracy?
- inclusive citizenship
2. effective participation (control the agenda)
what are the models of democracy according to David Held
- ancient athens: classical republicanism: liberty as equality
- renaissance republicanism: non-domination and community (self-gov and participation)
- modern liberal democracy: rights, duties and consent (individual freedom)
- bureaucracy: competitive elitism and technocratic vision (aren’t held accountable -> non-dem)
- parties: pluralism, corporate capitalism, state
- publics: deliberative dem
why are democracy and liberalism ‘odd bedfellows’?
dem = the good vs liberalism = the right? popular will (procedural) vssubstantive (outcome)? intrinsic defence vs instrumental defence
what is liberty according to Arendt?
- freedom: politics, action, performed (vs. an end)
(political space gives freedom a chance to exist) - problem: dominance of the will (wordly desires) (vs. I can -> community)
- sovereignty and freedom cannot exist both (must renounce sovereignty ti be free and focus on the general will)
what is Taylor’s view of liberty?
- both -ve and +ve need to be redefined, both are caricatures:
- +ve liberty = exercise-concept
- -ve liberty = opportunity-concept
- negative liberty can have both but that creates -> Maginot line
- negative lib makes no sense w/o positive lib
- need to differentiate between first order and second-order desires
what is the maginot line
only a line of defense when only believing in negative liberty (defense of interference)
problem with maginot line: rejects that obstacles can be internal too
what is Cohen’s view of liberty? (socialism)
socialism
- liberals and libertarians get freedom wrong -> don’t question how capitalism is also unfreedom
- need to communize certain items for greater freedom to use them (vs. sovereignty/privte property over things)
what is Hirschmann’s view of liberty?
feminist theory
- patriarchy determines how we define and understand freedom (social construction)
- need end of patriarchy for freedom but can’t blow it up because its also what constitutes us (social construction) so:
- must accept social construction destroying conventional understandings of freedom + not surrender agency to take part in constructing own society
what are core ideas of the liberal egalitarian school
- liberal: defends individual freedoms
2: egalitarian: assumes all are morally equal and an extensive distribution of material resources
(two other types: luck egalitarianism and sufficientism)
what are core ideas of the communitarian school
- importance of community
2. doubt whether principles of justice can travel
what are core ideas of the libertarian school
- private property/ownership
2. minimal state
what is Kymlicka’s / liberal egalitarian’s view on global justice multiculturalism?
- liberal culturalism
- some group rights matter for individual autonomy
(a) if minority rights: external (protect minority from majority) -> defendable
(b) if minority rights: internal (restrict individual liberties of individuals) -> not defendable
-> basically (because liberal egalitarianism), must distinguish between minority groups that supplement individual rights from those that restrict individual rights
according to Kymlicka, how can you determine whether minority rights should be protected?
- if they protect the freedom of individuals within the group
- if they promote relations of equality (non-dominance) between groups
what is Pareck’s / communitarianism’s view of global justice multiculturalism?
- communitarian:
(a) group membership is intrinsically valuable (regardless whether it promotes individual freedom -> so can restrict indiv freedom)
(b) conflict between groups can’t be resolved by universal principles - Parekh adds: not all cultures are worth protecting though
what is Kukathas’s / libertarian’s view of global justice multiculturalism?
- if cultural minority groups are chosen by indiv by choice -> have right to have extensive power over their members (because state should be neutral)
- only true if
(a) all can exit group when want to
(b) mutual toleration between groups
what are three schools of critiques of multiculturalism?
- cosmopolitan critique: multiculturalism essentializes cutlure -> generates an “other” + stunts growth of culture
- redistribution critique: politics of recognition take attention away from real needs + redistribution requires some cultural homogeneity
- feminist critique: protecting cultures means subjecting indivs within those groups to illiberal abuse
what is the general liberal egalitarian cosmopolitan view of global distributive justice?
some global distributive justice; do owe foreigners something
what is Pogge’s view (liberal egalitarian cosmo) on global distributive justice?
- co-nationals not > than foreigners
- west actively causes global pov (so have moral obligation)
- problem: proximity matters for people to care about inequality elsewhere
what is Caney’s view (liberal egalitarian cosmo) on global distributive justice?
- rights-based and instrumental approach are best (vs. intrinsic)
- distinguishes between modest vs ambitious cosmopolitans
(modest = need global distributive justice principles)
(ambitious = need global distributive justice principles + no moral obligations to our co-nationals - doesn’t matter who you are)
according to caney (lib egalitarian cosmo), what is the (1) intrinsic, (2) rights-based and (3) instrumental approach to global distributive justice?
(1) intrinsic = rights to self-gov (minimal set of rights)
(2) rights-based = rights to self-gov + social econ pol forces (expansive set of rights)
(3) instrumental = what pol system best advances the rights of all? (outcome)
what is Rawl’s view (liberal egalitarian statist) on global distributive justice?
- owe more to nationals > foreigners but still owe something to foreigners
- no global difference principle; national taxation structure distribution only
what is Nagel’s view (liberal egalitarian statist) on global distributive justice?
- owe more to nationals > foreigners but still owe something to foreigners (but not based on justice)
- state institution coercion only at nation-level (would need IO as coercive power)
- can help out those in need but not due to justice
what is Miller’s / the communitarian view on global distributive justice?
- no global justice obligations
- particularistic commitments (vs. universal principles)
- Miller adds: obligation to protect hr (basic needs (not context-dependent) but that’s it
what is Steiner’s / libertarianism view on global distributive justice?
- owe nothing to foreigners outside of ownership rights
2. so global justice claims does cross borders but only for private property/ownership rights
what is the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker?
refugee - those who risk persecution
asylum seeker - those who risk persecution + reached border of desired host state
what is the general liberal egalitarian view on immigration (global justice)?
relatively open borders
what is Rawl’s liberal egalitarian view on immigration (global justice)?
- relatively open border
- freedom of movement = part of liberty principle
- if movement focus: liberty principle > difference principle so freedom of movement can only be restricted on grounds of restricting liberty
- if membership focus: can be justified on difference principle (whether immigration helps the worst off)
- so open border if: (a) poses no threat to liberty and (b) benefits the worst off
what are 2 ways to philosophically examine immigration differently?
- freedom of movement
2. freedom of membership
what is Caren’s liberal egalitarian view on immigration (global justice)?
- alteration of question: should states have a right to police their own borders? no. strong open borders
- no distinction between indivs and aliens (because individuals > community)
- only a minimal public order restriction
what is Abizadeh’s liberal egalitarian view on immigration (global justice)?
- alteration of question: can a state control its borders unilaterally? no.
- border restrictions must be justified to insiders but also outsiders because it is arbitrary where we are borrn
what is the sufficiency liberal egalitarian view on immigration (global justice)?
- open borders is justified to achieve sufficiency (but only to that extent)
what is Walzer’s communitarian view on immigration (global justice)?
- need closed borders to keep society and culture intact
what is Miller’s communitarian view on immigration (global justice)?
- alteration of question: do basic hrs include the right to cross borders and live in territory of your choosing? no.
- sovereignty is important but not an absolute authority; also subject to hr
- rights of citizens > migrants due to self-determination
what is Steiner’s libertarian view on immigration (global justice)?
- states can exclude based on right to private property if state has rightful claim to territory
