doc Rawls lectures

RAWLS;
Oct 1st
 For Rawls, first virtue of institutions is justice; have to be fair
o Liberal theory of justice; liberal egalitarianism
o Persons are born free and equal, and we all have moral powers
o Each of us has ability to conceptualize our definition of the good, and
see other people as capable; we are all endowed with a sense of
justice
 Basic structure of domestic society; institutions are fairly closed; all are
subjects of justice
o At IR level, there is no basic structure (anarchic); is not closed
 Original position; if people were in a particular situation, what principles of
justice would they agree to? Veil of ignorance
o Unequal distribution is only justified if it’s to the advantage of the
worst off; eg, liberty and opportunity
 Fair equality of opportunity
 Difference principle (inequality has to benefit the worst off)
 A society structured to these principles of justice is ‘just’ and ‘fair’
 “liberal peoples”; just
 law of peoples; written early 1990s, after Soviet Union dissolution
 end of Cold War was seen as triumph of liberalism
 Rawls wrote in the midst of this triumphalism
o Basically opposes this trend; we should see our cooperation between
‘peoples’ as different from that of our closed, liberal societies











Ideal vs non ideal theory
Ideal; what are fundamental theories of justice irrespective of feasibility,
reality; non-ideal takes these questions into account
Ideal; criticized as naïve and utopian
For Rawls;
Ideal; the principles of justice to be worked towards
non ideal; what happens in circumstances of non-compliance?
Realistic utopia; conceives of the Law of Peoples as possible
o Imagined a theory which combines ideal and non ideal theory
o Action guiding, but also addresses actual state of things
Believed it would lead to world peace
‘Peoples’ rather than states; normative notion, the ideal type
o well ordered, with the right kind of internal institutions; they are
moral agents
It is possible to have bad political/social institutions that lead to an ‘outlaw’
state, but cannot have an ‘outlaw peoples’; people have moral capacity
States are capable of rational agency but not of moral agency/moral
interests; moral capacity lies with the people





Basic Features of Liberal Democratic Peoples
o Reasonably just constitutional democratic government (institutional)
o Citizens united by ‘common sympathies’ (cultural)
o Moral nature (moral)
First original position; domestic
Second original position; amongst ‘peoples’
o Mode of representation to arrive at the Law of Peoples (as worked out
by liberal peoples only)
o Terms are worked out amongst representatives of just, liberal
peoples; not a law of persons but amongst peoples
Not only liberal peoples included, but ‘decent’ peoples who are also well
ordered; they would come to same principels/conclusions as liberal peoples
Law of Peoples provides stability conducive to perpetual peace
o Is a moral allegiance, not just a law; moral recognition of its reasoning
October 3rd
 Non ideal theory; deals with non compliance regarding Law of Peoples, eg
outlaw states or burdened societies
 Realistic utopia; extends limits of practical political possibilities
 Problem with realism; “the limits of the possible are not given by the actual”
o Political and social institutions can change


Fundamental interests of peoples; protect territory, ensure security/safety,
do not seek glory or to rule over others
o Liberal peoples; shared conception of government
o Non-liberal decent peoples; also would have similar ideas
Therefore, no reason to go to war other than self-defense/severe human
rights abuses
o Hobbesian/Rousseau glory argument is null; we do not seek war, due
to virtues found in constitution

Democratic peace; “not incompatible with actual democracies” which have
exogenously intervened and not represented democratic peace
o These regimes have showed oligarchic, monopolistic tendencies

Why not have just one original position level, instead of two?
o Theoretical coherence; Rawls believed his previous works were
strong, and therefore built on top of them
o Empirical feasibility; peoples are organized into distinct, corporate,
political governments; social fact
o Starting with the cosmopolitan original position (eg all
citizens/individuals are free and equal) is a liberal conception; must
be more inclusive and pluralistic


With Rawls, there is no world state; the Law of Peoples instead, which
contains variety and diversity of forms of organization
Relationship between Law of Peoples and Int’l Law;
o Law of Peoples can help us look at current laws and see to what extent
it satisfies criteria of LOP

Democratic peace theory; democracies are peaceful towards other
democracies
o What is a democracy? Electoral procedures?
o For Rawls, five supporting features/conditions are necessary for a
democracy to actually have characteristics of democratic peace
 Equality of opportunity
 Decent distribution of freedom and wealth
 Society as employer of last resort
 Basic health care assured for all citizens
 Public financing of elections; transparent politics
o Without these conditions, a democracy will not have the attributes
necessary to put forward the democratic peace thesis
o Rawls is American; clearly critical of his own society

Must tolerate decent peoples; recognize non-liberal societies as equal
members of good standing; criterion of reciprocity in regards to due respect
o Accord them also rights and duties; they must show civility, and be
accountable
o Pluralism beyond liberalism is not something liberals should try to
destroy or transcend

Why shouldn’t we impose liberal ideals onto non-liberal peoples?
o A lack of respect shown for decent non-liberal peoples would be
insulting; must respect the fact of reasonable pluralism
A decent people is an ideal, normative conception
Decent peoples;
o Accepts others principles, does not try to impose them
o Has a system of laws that respects human rights
 Rawls has specific conception of human rights; a minimum
criteria of political legitimacy
o Common, good idea of justice, taking into account the fundamental
interests of all its members
o Consultative hierarchy with right to political dissent
o Religious freedom; allow religious discrimination. While it is not
reasonable, it is not fully unreasonable


October 15th
 Tolerating means accepting them as equal members in good standing





Requiring other societies to be liberal fails to express the concept of
toleration within political liberalism
o Reasonable pluralism
Assume people have moral capacity; because of individual reason, inevitable
that disagreement will occur over political values; natural outcome of free
institutions
o Compared to the basic structure of the domestic system, the Society of
Peoples would have even more diversity
If you admit the only just system is liberalism, main goal should be to
implement liberalism everywhere
o Should not just assume this; have to maintain mutual respect
Decent peoples; have to tolerate dissent, to show they’re capable of internal
change
Features of a decent peoples; criteria – they see the validity of the Law of
Peoples, and adopt it equally wholeheartedly
o Honors the laws of peace; they do not have aggressive aims
o Honor human rights
o Follow a common good idea of justice that serves the fundamental
interests of society and its peoples
o Requires a decent consultation hierarchy
o Citizens may not be ‘free and equal’, but they are seen as decent and
rational

Human rights; basic, primary subsistence rights; eg free from slavery, access
to decent consultation hierarchy
o The society must be one of shared cooperation

Freedom of religion; although there may be privileges/discrimination (ie
office-holding), there must not be persecution; religious toleration
o There is liberty of conscience, but not full and equal liberty
Rawls allows this because he’s trying for a realistic utopia; cannot be too
stringent, although these are ideal types (we do not presuppose existence of
these societies; our ‘liberal’ societies in the world may only qualify as decent)




Human rights; should not depend on comprehensive doctrine or
philosophical conception
o Non-parochial; can’t be particular to certain place
o Universal; moral (political) effect is felt whether or not they are
supported locally
o Carry legitimacy everywhere
o Have a special role in Law of Peoples; impose a limit on domestic
sovereignty
Rawls refers to UDHR but rejects a few of the articles (accepts only 3-18)
Human rights specify limits on domestic constitutions


The fulfillment of human rights justifies freedom from intervention
(including coercive sanctions)
Human rights set a limit on pluralism
Beitz
 Critiques non-parochial, limited version of human rights
 Espouses ‘Cosmopolitan Liberalism’; legitimacy of institutions rest on
impartial considerations of all individuals affected
o Individualistic, egalitarian
o Whereas Rawls would be a social liberal; sees intrinsic value of social
groupings
 Beitz focuses more on the moral, individual egalitarianism

Rawls’ ‘duty of non intervention’ except in non ideal conditions (outlaw
states, and violations of human rights)
o Should not even use foreign policy to provide incentives to other
peoples for converting to liberalism (although civil society in the
private sphere may do so)

Beitz sees Rawls as having a restrictive view of human rights
o Look at human rights and figure out normative purpose instead
o Do not just serve as justification for non-intervention; serve other
functions of setting certain aspirational standards
o Public role of human rights
o Rawls’ view of human rights is parochial in itself
Problem of paternalism; while Rawls would let a peoples decide and learn for
themselves rather than impose, Beitz argues that in individual cases (bike
helmet analogy), it only affects the individual, but in societies other people’s
rights can be infringed upon
o It is not paternalistic to stand up for the few people against their
oppressors; justification for the broader liberal conception of human
rights
… more critiques
human rights is a public enterprise; emergent, but not mature social practice
o plurality of ways to implement
o as a practice, Rawls’ conception is limited for how human rights are
actually regulated/enforced
states have the responsibility to provide citizens with human rights
the international community of states is the guarantor of those
responsibilities




