Theories of social justice should be:
a) abstract (generality and theoretical power reaching beyond political conflicts of their time, even if they originate from such conflicts).
b) also responsive to the world and its most urgent problems (open to changes and even structures in response to a new problem or to an old one that has been culpably ignored.
Notes historical flaws (inattentive to women's demands for equality - acknowledging family a political institution)
List 3 problems today - neglected in existing theories.
a) ppl with physical and mental impairments (education, health care, political rights and liberties and equal citizenship - urgent problem of justice)
b) all world citizens (accidents of birth and national origin do not warp people's lie chances pervasively and from the start).
c) treatment of nonhuman animals (pain and indignity at human hands - conceded to be ethical but not social justice).
Approaches to justice in Western tradition: social contract - developed in depth in Rawls (prob. strongest theories of justice we have - or at least Rawls made case that better than various forms of Utilitarianism). Rawls acknowledges in his theory these three problems especially difficult to solve.
She begins w/ conviction that they are indeed serious unsolved problems - argues the classical theory can't solve these - even in best form - focus therefore on Rawls
p. 4 - search for dif. type of theoretical structure - albeit in which major elements in Rawls's theory will survive.
Ideas that some citizens "pay their own way" and other's don't - that others are parasitic and others "normally productive" are the offshoots in the pplr imagination of the idea of society as a scheme of cooperation for mutual advantage. We could challenge those images in practical politics without identifying their source. It is actually quite helpful, however, to go to the root of th eproblem, so to speak (...) although this book engages w/ philosophical ideas in detail and with attention to the complexities and nuances of the theories in question, it's also intended as an essay in practical philosophy, which may guide us back to some richer ideas of social cooperation (old as well as new) that do not involve such difficulties.
Defends using philosophy even though it would work poliitcally - because it shows respect for the ppl one is criticizing and always helpful to go to the source - but you need detail...
Notes her work in Women and Human Development about method and justification and 2 particlar problems of religion and family.
She gives keys to the text (pages 7 and 8) to those who are interested in the general development of the capabilities approach:
a) Intuitive starting point - ch's 1, 3, and 5 (esp. example of education in 5.i).
b) Notion of human dignity (3iv, 3ix and 5iii).
c) Relationship between capabilities approach and Utilitarianism (ch1, 5ii, 6iii).
d) relationship between capabilities and rights (5iii) - made clear that the capabilities approach is one species of a human rights approach, and an improved account is given of why the language of capabilities seems superior to the (bare) language of human rights.
e) The relationship of the capabilities approach to issues of pluralism and cultural variety is discussed (again, but perhaps more concisely) in 5v and 1vi.
f) Role of the concept of equality in the capabilities approach is discussed in 5iv and 6ix. Because these arguments are both new and comp;lex, I do not attempt to summarize them here.
g) Rawlsian idea of "overlapping consensus," in rleation to the capbilities approach, is discussed in 3iv, 5vi, and 6xi. Addresses concerns about whether there can be an overlapping consensus among nations with diverse histories and traditions,a nd the even more difficult question whether we can expect an overlapping consensus on extending some basic rights to animals.
h) The relationship between capbailities as entitlements (rights) and duties to
secure those entitlements is discussed in 5.i.
No comments:
Post a Comment