Class Notes (834,885)
Canada (508,790)
York University (35,167)
Social Science (3,019)
SOSC 3375 (31)
Lecture

15 Feb - UNIT 2 - Sandel Liberalism & the Limits of Justice.docx

9 Pages
156 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Social Science
Course
SOSC 3375
Professor
Tanja Juric
Semester
Winter

Description
Feb 15, 2013 UNIT2:L IBERALISM & THE L IMITS OF JUSTICE  Transition from Locke to Sandel  Central issue of Unit 2: Justice o What does justice mean? o How is justice enacted and how is it enforced in the law and social norms/values? o Is there a universal understanding of justice – is it culturally conditioned and contextual or is it universal across the board?  Connection to Unit 1: o How does an individual go about pursuing justice? Last unit was about the individual connecting with society o What do we do when our individuals sense of justice conflicts with others in society? – this relates to the question of whether or not justice is universal  Whose sense of justice prevails? I. Individualism  Emphasis on the individual o Sandel is invested in the right/freedom of the individual to act according to their own moral principles o Interested in seeing how this right/freedom plays out in a democracy where individual often have diverging claims and interests  Unlike Locke’s division of church/state, Sandel sees difficulty in maintaining neutrality o I.e., religious/culture and state concerns often overlap on issues of same-sex marriage, abortion etc.…) – there’s evidence where religion and secular concerns are always conflicting  Sandel advocates for a participatory system of justice o Come together to engage in discussion and debate over issues of social, political significance o Develop a more accurate and informed understanding of one another’s position o In this shared model, it will allow us to come to some shared understanding of how we can/ought live together in a diverse society and globalised world o Sandel criticizes the legal tradition for being too naïve in thinking that we can separate religion and secular – this doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s impossible to go about achieving equality, but the way that we go about it is providing a way so that everyone can participate in society  Differences in Locke and Sandel’s understanding of Liberalism  What sorts of socio-historical conditions might be influcing their concerns? (i.e., Locke was speaking to a predominately Christian audience, and addressing conflict among Christians. Can the same be said for Sandel?  There are ways in which the marginalization in Sandel’s context is being addressed – that’s the diference between Locke and Sandel – Locke’s time period was Christo-normative whereas today, even though Canada may come from Christian origins, there is effort to be accepting of all people.  Bifurcated 1  Principles Underlying Liberalism  Emphasis on the individual rights and freedoms  Effects seen in contemporary legal and political issues (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, universal healthcare)  We see individual rights and freedoms as defining factors of liberal democracies  Yet exercising these individual rights often collides with shared notions of justice or ‘the good life’ – there’s no good in going around and claiming our individual rights without acknowledging the rights of others  The good life is one that is identified and promoted by a shared group, by a society – living by the guidelines set aside by society  Sandel’s “liberalism and the Primacy of Justice  The right prior to good?  Sandel is not concerned whether rights are individual, or communitarian  He’s concerned whether rights can be justified wtout the conception of good life – we don’t accept something as right or wrong unless we have a communal conception of what is good and valuable  2 ways good is linked with justice: o Communitarian  values of community determines what is good/just o Teleological (telos means end point  moving toward a fixed (perfect) end; progress is deemed to be a theological movement towards an ultimate end; actions in society are justified because they’re moving toward a perfect/desirable end  Primacy of justice 1. Moral sense  highest social virtue; outweighs all other virtues 2. Deontological view  independently derived; an end in itself as opposed to an idealized perfect end – prior to all other ends – the immediate actions along the way – not concerned with the final perfect end. o Deontological ethics - every end is an end onto itself; every action has to be right along the way – i.e., you may not use immoral means to achieve a particular just end  E.g., lie to protect; torture to gain information o Opposes consequentialism and theology, because they may justify using a variety of immoral means to achieve a particular (just) end 1. Liberalism Liberalism philosophy’s main crux is the development of individual freedom, but the concepts of liberal freedom change throughout different historical time periods. However, the final aim of liberalism remains fixed (i.e., its belief in essential human goodness and human rationality). “Liberalism assumes that people, having a rational intellect, have the ability to recognize problems and solve them and thus can achieve systematic improvement in human condition” 2. Classical Liberalism Classical liberalism stemmed from the ideals of the Enlightenment period, which marked the turning point in human thought and human reason. Classical liberalism stresses human rationality along with the importance of individual property rights, natural rights, and the need for constitutional limitations on the government (i.e., give the individual freedom from any influence or restraint that the government may attempt to uphold). Classical liberalism represents principles such as: representative government, the protection of civil liberties, laissez-faire economics. 3. The sociological objection to liberalism 2 Social conditions have a pervasive influence of social conditions in shaping individual values and political arrangements. According to this theory brought by Sandel, “liberalism is wrong because neutrality is impossible, and that neutrality is impossible because try as we might, we can never wholly escape the effects of our conditioning” (11). In other words, the hyped idea of liberalism and independence is just an illusion. Sandel argues that the ideal of a society governed by so-called “neutral” principles is “liberalism’s false promise” in that by virtue of our social conditioning, biases will exist that will influence ideas and conceptions in favor of individualistic values. 4. Deontological Liberalism Sandel introduces this theory as one about the “primacy of justice among moral and political ideal” (1). This theory is about how the principles that govern a society are best arranged when they do not “themselves presuppose any particular conception of the good”, but rather that they conform to the concept of right – a moral category. Tutorial  Deontological liberalism – a theory about justice – o Moral sense of justice – justice is primary because it’s the highest of all social virtue – justice is better than any other virtue o Foundational – individually derived; justice is foundational and the highest (and everything is based on it) because it is independent from the social and that it sets the framework for everything (i.e., if something’s good or bad, it depends on the independent meaning of justice) o Justice is an end in itself, it’s independent from the social, and it’s abstracted from the social o In the moral sense, deontological liberalism opposes consequentialism – consequences determine the justness of an action – if you perform a particular action and you get good consequences then it’s a good action and vice versa – the consequences determine the morality of the actions.  Why does deontological liberalism oppose consequentialism?  Consequences take place in the social – the definition of justice is embedded in the social. In contrast, deontology opposes this idea and advocates for the view that justice is separate from the social, and it’s operates outside the social sphere. o Teleology – the belief that evolution leads towards perfection – so, human evolution is progressing towards an ideal of perfection. As society progresses, we become more and more just -justice is re-embedded into the social – but deontological liberals will say that justice is separate from the social; the idea of progress and aiming for justice is flawed. For teleological thinkers, justice is subject to change, whereas deontological liberals will believe that justice is not subject to chance o Mill believes that the two can be detached o P.3 – for Mill, justice stands higher on the scale of social utility – utility is a degree of desire; utilitarianism is based on the largest amount of happiness for the largest amount of people – this involves making people happy, which is by definition social o Kant – 2 problems with utilitarianism  Not reliable  Because they’re unreliable, they can be coercive  The greatest good is subjective and our idea of justice therefore becomes very unreliable, and because certain people’s ideas of the “good life” will be accepted over others, it will be coercive. 3  Our conception of justice has nothing to do with popular conceptions of the good, nor with the means to achieve those goods. Instead, the priority of right is derived entirely from the concept of freedom and the mutual external relationships of human beings (transcendental)  Kantean word for empiricism – Phenomenal realm – the realm of experience and the social o He contrasts this from the noumenal realm (this subject has freedom and autonomy) – an abstracted realm of philosophical ideals, which is independent of the phenomenal realm, independent of experience and the social - this is the realm where we have our definition of justice  Animals can only live phenomenal existence, and in the noumenal there’s the n human beings.  The subject – empirical subject would be based on experience; humans are different, humans exist in another realm that’s abstracted – humans have a consciousness that unites all of their experiences – this transcends experience and interpret/unite them in different ways. Only humans have this unity, this noumenal experience – because of this, it’s the noumenal realm that makes us human – it’s the realm of rationality that Locke was talking about – free from experience, free from the social, abstracted from any nitty gritty material realities. Our definition of justice is in this realm, in this abstract realm.  In the phenomenal realm, we can have good understandings of the end, there’s no guarantee of unification, but in the noumenal realm there’s rationality. Kant tells us that the noumenal realm is the only realm where we can be free (transcendental subjects are the only way that humans are free p. 9, first paragraph)  P. 11 – 2 objections: o Sociological objection – never gets out of the phenomenal level o Deontology with a human face  For Kant – large distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal  For Rawls – there can be some fusion of the two realms II. Justice and the Moral Subject  For Rawls, being fair means we need to: o Hide behind a veil of ignorance – being blind or not able to see the specificities of a person’s identities and as a result we’ll treat them in a more fair as opposed to treating them according to our own biases  (i.e., not influenced by social bonds) o and adopt an ‘original position’  Fundamentally objective/neutral and rational  Sandel asks: o Is it more fair to be detached/aloof (as per Rawls)? o Or do we need contextual information to be able to judge fairly? (i.e., substantive)  What is fairness based upon? o Abstract or concrete? o What does a fair, or just process involve? o Formal equality vs. Substantive equality – The experiences of different individuals means that we cannot treat everyone the same because treat everyone the same means to perpetuate the differences – it’s important to acknowledge the differences and rebalance the imbalance.  Chapter: “Justice and the Moral Subject”  This chapter sets the tone for the unit. Sandel outlines concerns re:  John Rawls’ theory of justice, and the limitations to a liberal approach 4  Sandel’s main concern:  A strict individualist approach to justice and fairness ignores the importance of community, social bonds and loyalty  Homogenous society – unified ideal, singular interests  Lecture objectives:  We have asked whether fairness is best achieved by: o Putting differences aside?  (i.e., seeing one another as the same without allegiances r concrete identity) o Or is acknowledging difference a necessary part of fairness?  I.e., substantive equality  How realistic is it to ignore difference, specificity and identity? March 1, 2013 III. Individual & Social Cl
More Less

Related notes for SOSC 3375

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit