College aantekeningen
IRO Contemporary Political Philosophy Lecture notes 1-11
- Instelling
- Universiteit Leiden (UL)
Lecture notes of the first 11 lectures of CPP (IRO 2020/2021).
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 33 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 33 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
1: Introduction09 January 2021 17:21
- Swift, pp. 1-10
Eichmann trial after WW2: 'human embodiment of evil' --> defence was that he was just
following orders as law abiding citizen, obeying the law of the land. Incredibly powerful
defence: following the law is what we all desire to do.
--> it is insufficient to follow the law because its the law, determining whether laws are 'right'
cannot be done through the internal logic of the law itself. --> preceding theory of justice:
determine what is 'right' before making the law
What is political philosophy?
• Philosophy = it seeks truth, determining values and principles through rational
argumentation, as opposed to e.g. Empirical description
• Political = pertains to state institutions, and people insofar as they're public citizens
-> Swift: states as collective agent of the citizens, who decide what its laws are;
''a branch of moral philosophy, interested in justification, in what the state ought (and ought
not) to do. The state, as political philosophers think about it, isn’t – or shouldn’t be – something
separate from and in charge of those who are subject to its laws''
=> ''it is a very specific subset of moral philosophy, and one where the stakes are
particularly high. It’s not just about what people ought to do, it’s about what people are
morally permitted, and sometimes morally required, to make each other do''
-> Fabre: ''A theory of justice sets out what is owed to whom. In other words, it sets out the
content of justice and delineates its scope'' --> justifications for state policies
Why political philosophy?
Rawls (Justice of fairness): Why political philosophy?
1. To uncover deep moral understanding and compatibility
--> even at the root of warring peoples and ideologies.
--> it is through digging deeper into the core of our beliefs that we discover core
similarities at their root
2. To reconsider our own institutions, as well as our purpose in participating in these
institutions.
3. By looking at our institutions rationally, we understand their own rational fabric.
4. To help create the terms for a reasonable utopia.
--> partially borne of accepting the world as it presents itself to us, and partially to help us
structure a better world to our liking. (argument devolved from Rousseau)
-> Rousseau: aim of political philosophy is to “take men as they are and laws as they
should be.”
Thinking like a political philosopher
I. Social Justice
--> Focus on ‘Social Justice’. This follows John Rawls’s proclamation that ‘justice is the first
virtue of social institutions’
--> What is social justice? A complicated term: what is considered just or unjust? Can society
act?
-> Meaning of social justice is a set of things, best phrased as questions:
• What can the state legitimately coerce us to do?
• How can (and should) the state constrain individual action?
• How can the law be justified?
• How should society be organized?
II. Ideal theory
--> This approach to the study of politics is called ‘ideal theory’. The pursuit of ‘ideal’ principles
that should guide society. But can we really approach society this way?
-> Two objections: realism and non-ideal theory
1) Realism: the claim that the pursuit of the 'ideal' justice is unmoored from reality
• Pursuing idealist visions misunderstand the nature of politics, which distills to
Contemporary Pol. Philosophy Page 1
, • Pursuing idealist visions misunderstand the nature of politics, which distills to
vicious and (sometimes) irrational struggles for power – i.e. idealism is insensitive
to power.
--> You don’t begin with moralism, and then apply it to real politics; instead you
begin with real politics, and aim for good outcome
2) Non-Ideal Theory: the claim that ideal theories of justice cannot apply to actual societies
• Idealism is unpragmatic
• We need principles for what to do in actual societies. Pursuing ideal theory is
ignorant at best and dangerous at worst
So why ideal theory?
- Generate principles that guide society towards moral ends: 'lighthouse' function
- Goal =/= design an ideal society, but figure out why it would be ideal
- It determines what values take precedence over others: way of adjucation
- To determine what is at stake morally, in decisions we take politically
Contemporary Pol. Philosophy Page 2
,2-3: Social Justice
04 February 2021 15:19
- Swift, pp. 11-56
The concept of justice has various tenets:
-> contemporary example of the imposed curfew by the Dutch government in the name of public
health
Concept v. Conception
-> Concept = the basic structure of a value or principle, such as justice or liberty; It's broad and
capacious, encapsulating many different meanings
-> Conception = particular version of a concept supported by an author, honing it down to a
subset of meaning and characteristics, e.g. 'civic republican' or 'libertarian' conception of liberty
=> This course will mostly deal with (competing) conceptions
What is the concept of justice?
Swift: ''Giving people what is due to them'' --> ties justice to duty: what is morally required that
we do for one another. ''Not what is morally good to do, but what morality compels us to do''
Fundamentals: the Right and the Good
- The Good
-> Utility, about 'ends'
-> Substance
Rawls: A person’s good is determined by what is for him the most rational long-term plan
of life given reasonably favourable circumstances --> satisfaction of rational desire
-> The value of something has to do with the outcome of said thing
- The Right
-> 'means'
-> Procedure
Rawls: A set of principles, general in form and universal in application, that is to be
publicly recognized as a final court of appeal for ordering the conflicting claims of moral
persons
=> When discussing justice, we are referring to what is right instead of what is good
Justice and Morality
-> are they the same thing? No, morality is much bigger
-> Example: we can say it is morally good to give to charity, but there is no duty to do so -->
Justice as a question of duty over morality
=> Justice as a moral duty sufficient to justify state coercion towards that end
Justice according to Hayek (1899-1992)
The road to serfdom (1944)
Hayek: there is no such thing as 'social justice', so thinking this way was itself a category
mistake:
- Morality only makes sense as an individual enterprise
--> collectives can't have agency: one big society can not act justly or unjustly
--> As such, the distribution of resources, such as produced by the market, is not the
intention of individual actors
- Any attempt by the state to act in the name of justice or liberty, will have the opposite
effect
--> State has no right to make these judgements
--> Attempts to do so will disrupt the market, which will generate its own generate fair
outcomes.
Critical responses:
• Is it really a categorial mistake?
-> Social acts can be judged according to standards of justice, even if there is no single
Contemporary Pol. Philosophy Page 3
, -> Social acts can be judged according to standards of justice, even if there is no single
actor responsible for actions
-> And even amongst people, we believe people can be held responsible for actions they
did not intend
• States do not act
-> Individuals take action in government – as through executive decision-making
-> If the population is sovereign, so do all people – through voting, for example
Justice according to Rawls (1921-2002)
A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993), The Law of Peoples (1999)
Rawls: Justice as Fairness
- Thought experiment: the original position and the veil of ignorance; a kind of social
contract
Social contract: the idea that society is based on an unwritten social contract --> the
people have agreed on some terms of social cooperation
--> Rawls: people can only agree to such terms if they do not have their own self-
interest in mind; what makes such a social contract just is if its made without any
personal reservations by the people
What principles of justice would you pick if you did not know how you were going to be
affected by them?
-> The original position imagines people choosing principles of justice, but
a) without any knowledge of ascriptive characteristics (race, sex, religion, social
class, intelligence, etc). So decision is not biased by advantage. (i.e. their interests)
b) they don’t know their conception of the good. (What makes life worth living) (i.e.
their values)
-> The people do know, however, that in order to make use of this capacity they will need
“primary goods”
-> Primary goods = things that every rational man is presumed to want (rights,
freedoms, income etc.)
=> Outcome is a hypothetical contract, based on essentially perfectly fair terms of
deliberation
-> 'perfect' procedural justice, as opposed to 'imperfect' procedural justice
--> e.g. A criminal trial: there is an independent criterion for the correct
outcome, there is no feasible procedure which is sure to lead to it
''The two principles are those a person would choose for the design of a society in which
his enemy is to assign him his place''
The hypothetical consent is more important than the actual consent --> had you been in
the original position, you would not have consented to that thing you consent to, so its
power is derived from the fact that it shows what fair procedural consent looks like
=> So what would these hypothetical people choose according to Rawls (ranked by
priority):
1. “Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of basic
liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all”
=> pertains to liberty. All members of society are to have basic liberties
2. “Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
A. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged; (the difference principle:
''maximin') --> natural talents are distributed on the basis of luck so we should
compensate those who are not so well-endowed
B. attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity;
=> In the event that there are social and economic inequalities (which is not in itself
given), the second principle kicks in to enable (2b) that all people have equal
opportunity and access, and (2a) that inequalities are tolerated only insofar as they
benefit the worst off
Critical responses:
• Risk aversion: Why would we assume that people would be careful/cautious with their
standing, rather than want to, say, gamble on their talents? Rawls is too focussed on
Contemporary Pol. Philosophy Page 4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper MartR. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €2,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 75632 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen