Part II Paper 10: Political Philosophy / Global
Justice: Lecture 4: The Law of Peoples
Chris Thompson [email protected]
1
Overview of the lectures
1. Global poverty 2. Cosmopolitan theories
3. NaConalisCc theories 4. The law of peoples
2
Overview of the lectures
1. Global poverty 2. Cosmopolitan theories
3. NaConalisCc theories 4. The law of peoples
3
Readings
• RAWLS, J., The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). [Parts 1 & 2, S15,16]
• MARTIN, R. & REIDY, D.A. (eds.) Rawls’s Law of Peoples (Blackwell, 2006) [various secondary readings]
4
Summary
1. Background – The problem of poverty – NaConalisCc resistance – Cosmopolitanism (via Rawls’ ToJ)
2. The Law of Peoples • The Original PosiCon for Peoples • The Veil of Ignorance • The Eight Principles • Decent Peoples • Global JusCce
5
Summary
1. Background – The problem of poverty – NaConalisCc resistance – Cosmopolitanism (via Rawls’ ToJ)
2. The Law of Peoples • The Original PosiCon for Peoples • The Veil of Ignorance • The Eight Principles • Decent Peoples • Global JusCce
6
1. Background
We have a clash between two claims: 1. Liberal theories of jusCce are worked out
with reference to a limited poliCcal community.
2. Liberal theories of jusCce do not consider arbitrary facts such as gender or race to carry moral significance.
7
1. Background
• Cosmopolitanism – accept (2), dismiss (1). • NaConalism – accept (1), dismiss (2).
• Law of Peoples -‐ somewhere between (1) and
(2).
8
1. Background
• Cosmopolitanism – accept (2), dismiss (1). • NaConalism – accept (1), dismiss (2).
• Law of Peoples -‐ somewhere between (1) and
(2).
9
1. Background
The problem of global poverty • 1/3 of all human deaths are due to poverty (18m,pa).
• 1/4 of all people live below the internaConal poverty line (enough for a nutriConally adequate diet and essenCal non-‐food items).
• 1/6 without access to safe water. • 1/3 without access to basic sanitaCon. • 1/3 without access to electricity.
10
1. Background
The problem of global poverty • DfID has a target of spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development aid.
• And yet*… – 70% of people think aid should be scaled back – 64% of people think it’s wrong to ring-‐fence aid from cuts
*ICM survey via Sunday Telegraph
11
1. Background -‐ NaConalism
12
Self
Family
Friends
Co-‐naConals
Foreigners
1. Background -‐ NaConalism
1. RelaConships are an essenCal feature of moral agents. (Miller) – This contrasts with the Rawlsian Original PosiCon, where the Veil of Ignorance strips these features away.
2. Contractualist jusCficaCon for special duCes. – NaCons are like mutual benefit socieCes.
– But what about people who don’t contribute?
13
1. Background -‐ NaConalism
3. Social boundaries are a convenient mechanism for allocaCng general duCes. – Help the person standing next to you.
4. The bonds we feel for friends and family are brute data. Any moral theory that ignores them is implausible. – But we sCll need a jusCficaCon for the more distant bonds of society.
14
1. Background -‐ Cosmopolitan
• Rawls’ Jus2ce as Fairness is the classic liberal theory.
• People do not deserve to be born rich or poor; male or female; black or white… As such, these features are morally arbitrary, and the resources that flow from them are not deserved.
15
1. Background -‐ Cosmopolitan
• The country you are born into seems every bit as arbitrary – and therefore morally irrelevant – as the race or social class you are born into.
• The Veil of Ignorance would strip naConality from agents in the Original PosiCon.
• Agents would know that they would be born into a parCcular naCon, but not know which one.
• If agents would not want social circumstances to impact on their wellbeing, they would not want their naCon of birth to maper either.
16
1. Background -‐ Cosmopolitan
• Of greatest interest is the Difference Principle: – Social and economic inequaliCes are to be arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just saving principle.
• This would oblige us to maximise the wellbeing – not of the worst-‐off members of our own naCon – but to maximise the wellbeing of the worst-‐off people in the world.
17
1. Background -‐ Cosmopolitan
• BUT – Rawls did NOT think that the Theory of JusCce applied across socieCes.
• The Theory of JusCce is only supposed to apply to self-‐contained socieCes. “ Here I follow Kant’s lead… in thinking that a world government – by which I mean a unified poliCcal regime with the legal powers normally exercised by central government – would either be a global despoCsm or else would rule over a fragile empire torn by frequent civil strife as various regions and peoples tried to gain their poliCcal freedom and autonomy” (p.36)
• As such, the ‘agents’ in a global theory of jusCce are not individuals but Peoples.
18
Summary
1. Background – The problem of poverty – NaConalisCc resistance – Cosmopolitanism (via Rawls’ ToJ)
2. The Law of Peoples • The Original PosiCon for Peoples • The Veil of Ignorance • The Eight Principles • Decent Peoples • Global JusCce
19
Summary
1. Background – The problem of poverty – NaConalisCc resistance – Cosmopolitanism (via Rawls’ ToJ)
2. The Law of Peoples • The Original PosiCon for Peoples • The Veil of Ignorance • The Eight Principles • Decent Peoples • Global JusCce
20
2. The Law of Peoples The Original PosiCon
Theory of Jus,ce • We imagine a situaCon is
which all the parCcipants in a given society must come together to decide on the insCtuCons that will govern that society.
• ParCcipants are free and equal individuals.
• Reasonable pluralism of views of the good life.
• Persons fundamental interests are given by their concepCon of the good.
Law of Peoples • We imagine a situaCon in
which parCcipants must come together to establish the laws that will govern the basic structure of the relaCons between Peoples.
• ParCcipants are free and equal Peoples (c.f. liberal, democraCc socieCes)
• Diversity of cultures. • Peoples fundamental interests
specified by their poliCcal concepCon of jusCce
21
Summary
1. Background – The problem of poverty – NaConalisCc resistance – Cosmopolitanism (via Rawls’ ToJ)
2. The Law of Peoples • The Original PosiCon for Peoples • The Veil of Ignorance • The Eight Principles • Decent Peoples • Global JusCce
22
2. The Law of Peoples The Veil of Ignorance
Theory of Jus,ce • Strips agents in the Original
PosiCon of all those accidental features that may generate biases.
• Agents do not know their: – Race, sex, social status, religion,
natural talents, view of the good life…
• Agent do know that: – There are races, sexes,…different
views of the good life. – That society will operate under
condiCons of moderate scarcity. – Basic economics and psychology.
Law of Peoples • Strips Peoples in the second
Original PosiCon of all those features which may create biases.
• Peoples don’t know the ‘… size of their territory, of the populaCon, or the relaCve strengths of the people whose fundamental interests they represent,…the extent of their natural resources, or the level of their economic development…’.
23
Summary
1. Background – The problem of poverty – NaConalisCc resistance – Cosmopolitanism (via Rawls’ ToJ)
2. The Law of Peoples • The Original PosiCon for Peoples • The Veil of Ignorance • The Eight Principles • Decent Peoples • Global JusCce
24
2. The Law of Peoples Principles agreed in the OP
Theory of Jus,ce The Principles of JusCce 1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberCes compaCble with a similar system of liberty for all. 2. Social and economic inequaliCes are to be arranged so that they are both: a. to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle; and b. apached to office and posiCons open to all under condiCons of fair equality of opportunity.
Law of Peoples The Principles of the Law of Peoples
1. Peoples are free and independent, and their freedom and independence are to be respected by other peoples
2. Peoples are to observe treaCes and undertakings 3. Peoples are equal and are parCes to the agreements that bind them
4. People are to observe a duty of non-‐intervenCon 5. Peoples have the right of self-‐defence but no right to insCgate war for reasons other than self-‐defence
6. Peoples are to honour human rights 7. peoples are to observe certain specified restricCons on the conduct of war
8. Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavourable condiCons that prevent their having a just or decent poliCcal and social regime
25
2. The Law of Peoples
• Why wouldn’t Peoples in the second Original PosiCon accept the Difference Principle?
• Recall that the Difference Principle states that departures from equality are permissible provided that these benefit the worst-‐off.
• Peoples would not be prepared to sacrifice their well-‐being for the sake of others, where there is no “cooperaCve venture for mutual advantage”.
26
2. The Law of Peoples
• The Original PosiCon is run once, to establish the principles that will govern the internal arrangements of liberal socieCes.
• The Original PosiCon is run a second Cme – this Cme to establish the laws that will govern the arrangements between liberal socieCes. ParCcipants become the ‘Society of Peoples’
• Liberal peoples have three features: (1) a reasonably just democraCc government; (2) ciCzens united by common sympathies; (3) a moral nature (and so will offer fair terms).
27
Summary
1. Background – The problem of poverty – NaConalisCc resistance – Cosmopolitanism (via Rawls’ ToJ)
2. The Law of Peoples • The Original PosiCon for Peoples • The Veil of Ignorance • The Eight Principles • Decent Peoples • Global JusCce
28
2. The Law of Peoples -‐Decent Peoples
• The Law of Peoples is then extended to non-‐liberal but ‘Decent’ Peoples: – Non-‐aggressive and engages in war only in self-‐defence. – Assigns (basic) human rights to all its members. – Its basic structure includes a decent consultaCon hierarchy, ensuring that all groups in society are decently represented.
– Judges and officials administer the legal system on the basis of the common good.
• Liberal Peoples in OP do not have comprehensive doctrines of the good, whereas Decent Peoples do have comprehensive doctrines of the good.
29
2. The Law of Peoples -‐Decent Peoples
E.g. ‘Kazanistan’ • FicConal Islamist state
• No separaCon of church and state. • Only Muslims can take high office.
• But tolerates other religions, and fully involves non-‐Muslims in civil society.
30
2. The Law of Peoples -‐Decent Peoples
• RepresentaCves of Decent Hierarchical Peoples would accept the same 8 principles as Liberal Peoples.
• Liberal Peoples use OP twice, once intra society, once inter socieCes.
• But Decent Peoples only use OP once – for internaConal commitments.
31
Summary
1. Background – The problem of poverty – NaConalisCc resistance – Cosmopolitanism (via Rawls’ ToJ)
2. The Law of Peoples • The Original PosiCon for Peoples • The Veil of Ignorance • The Eight Principles • Decent Peoples • Global JusCce
32
2. The Law of Peoples Global JusCce
• So what does the Law of Peoples mean for global jusCce?
• Outlaw states are aggressive and dangerous, and are not tolerated
• If other naCons fail to uphold basic HR then grounds for intervenCon.
• The aim is not ongoing redistribuCon, but rather allowing eventual parCcipaCon in the Society of Peoples.
33
2. The Law of Peoples Global JusCce
Burdened socieCes • Burdened socieCes lack the poliCcal and cultural condiCons, human
capital, material and technological resources needed to be well-‐ordered
• Burdened socieCes are not always poor and the soluCons are not always via distribuCve jusCce
“…merely dispensing funds will not suffice to recCfy basic poliCcal and social injusCces. But an emphasis on human rights may work to change ineffecCve regimes and the conduct of the rulers who have been callous about the well-‐being of their own people” p.108 “ …there is no easy recipe for helping a burdened society to change its poliCcal culture. Throwing funds at it is usually undesirable and the use of force is ruled out by the Law of Peoples. But certain kinds of advice may be helpful…” p.110
34
2. The Law of Peoples Global JusCce
DistribuCve JusCce among Peoples • The reasons for caring about equality within a society don’t
apply between socieCes. E.g. no impact on poliCcal rights, or on social status.
• Rawls seems to accept ‘equal opportunity’ arguments – economic differences between states are a result of choice (over poliCcal culture), and so Peoples must be held responsible for the consequences of their choices.
“ The role of the duty of assistance is to assist burdened socieCes to become full members of the society of Peoples and to be able to determine the path of their own future for themselves. It is a posiCon of transi2on”. P.118.
35
2. The Law of Peoples
Two brief criCcisms 1. Rawls’ explanaCon of the causes of poverty
seem a bit sweeping. Uncomfortably close to casually blaming the vicCm.
2. Why must the Original PosiCon be run in two stages rather than one?
36
Next week…
• No lecture
37
