Free Essay

Why Does Mills Think That Utilitarianism Provides the Foundation for Justice and Why Does Rawls Reject It?

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By otiz29
Words 3508
Pages 15
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Why does Mills think that Utilitarianism provides the foundation for Justice and why does Rawls reject it?
Introduction
The concept of utilitarianism is one that has engulfed the philosophical arena with an obscene number of arguments that support and/or criticize it. Generally, utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics that defines an action as one that ensures maximum utility. Other schools of thought would like to put it as the concept of “maximizing happiness while reducing suffering” (Mills 3).In as much as utilitarianism has continued to receive applause from people and the political scene, other divergent scholars has come up with other theories that seek to compromise the philosophies under which the concept of utilitarianism operates. As a result, utilitarianism has become subject to contradictions from other theories in the field of ethics. The thinking class in other fields of utilitarianism characterizes in as a quantitative yet reductionist approach to ethics (Mills 3). Over time, the concept of utilitarianism has received ideological threats from; deontological ethics which does not assign moral worth to an action based on its consequences, virtue ethics that solely deals with action and habits that results to happiness, pragmatic ethics and other forms of ethics that backs the idea of consequentialism. In a nut shell, the concept of utilitarianism as defined by political philosophers and in relation to justice is becoming a “battlefield” where the philosophical bigwigs continue to come up with ideas and findings that seek to either develop or criticize the existing theories. The need to understand the theories surrounding utilitarianism has given birth to such respected and honorable philosophers like John Stuart Mills and John Rawls. The two philosophers have continued to differ in their presentation of the philosophies governing the concept of utilitarianism. This paper seeks to investigate utilitarianism as presented by the two philosophers and establish the ideological conflicts that exist between the two schools of thought.
The working Hypothesis Mill claims that utilitarianism provides the foundation for justice. He holds that what is just is that that is considered by the greatest number of people to be just. However, this claim has received a challenge from Rawls who proclaims that justice is a question of obeying the individual natural rights. This paper seeks to investigate the ideological differences in the two schools of thought while citing the main reasons why Rawls challenges Mill’s position on the concept of justice.
Discussion
Justice, as the philosophy world would define it, qualifies as one of the most sensitive subjects in political philosophy. Many philosophers have theorized and invented various ways in which the laws governing justice can derive. These theories bases on two main topics; the natural rights theory and utilitarianism and have equivalently sparked a heated debate which has left a mark in the philosophical regime. This essay will seek to evaluate he two schools of thought in light of the two famous and historic philosophers: John Rawls; whose name reminds scholars of his mighty works of the natural rights theories coupled with his sole idea of “veil of ignorance” and John Mills; founder of the principles of utilitarianism and famously known for his idea of the “impartial spectator”. The two theories are subject to a critical and systematic analysis. The paper will start by analyzing Mills’ perspective of justice hen move to Rawls. After that, the paper will attempt to draw the ideological differences of Rawls’ and Mills’ in the light of justice. The paper will then offer a personal justification attesting to the reason why Mills and Rawls might be ideologically correct in their perspective of thinking, citing basic reasons why this could be so.
Mill’s Argument on Justice John Stuart Mill is a renowned philosopher who is popular for his mighty works of utilitarianism and his idea of the “impartial spectator”. Mill attributes the concepts of Justice to utilitarianism, claiming that any action should seek to attain utility as an end result and cause happiness to the greatest number of people. So, what does Mill mean by utility of action? According to Mill, the satisfaction in an action is measured by how happy the society perceives the action. Happiness, according to Mill, is an equal of attaining the intended pleasure or that of avoiding pain (Mill 137). In his argument, Mill also tries to define the concept of real pleasure. He expresses this kind of pleasure not only as the bodily pleasure that lies on instincts and appetite, but also that kind of pleasure that is unsatisfactory to humans who ranks higher than animals given their capacity to think better (Mill, p. 138). In the wake of Mill’s argument, mental pleasures are more superior to the bodily pleasures. In such, Mill expresses that being a fool who is satisfied with the foolishness is not as valuable as being a wise man who is not satisfied (Mill, p. 140). The concept of the importance of the quality of pleasure according to Mill does not go unrealized. Mill reiterates that an action is termed as “just” when it offers happiness to an individual or the smallest group of people. From a utilitarian dimension, actions should offer high amounts of pleasure for the greatest number of people or even the whole society. Therefore, Mill seems to prove that justice can only be achieved through an intellectual maturity of the people in the society by them realizing that they should act in a way that benefits the whole community or society and not in a manner that instigates self-profit. Mill refers to this intellectual maturity as one of the greatest virtues in the entire world. (Mill 147). However, Mill tosses another “side of the coin” to this argument, that the intellectual maturity is only considered good or virtuous if it produces societal happiness. Otherwise, it stands to serve no purpose. “A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted” (Mill 148). How does Mill propose to archive this ethical and intellectual maturity? This question now defines the genesis of Mill’s idea of “impartial spectators”. Mill affirms that the only way to attain intellectual maturity is by an existence of a people or citizens who act as the “impartial spectators”. Mill suggests that people should be cognizant of the fact that they, in a social life setting, can only achieve individual satisfaction when their actions aim at attaining public utility. This will encourage people to realize the extent of damage caused by egoism hence; people must attempt to act devotedly to their societies. Mill suggests in his argument that the law should be constructed in such a way that it harmonizes individual benefits with public utility (Mill, p. 148). Mill closes his argument by appreciating utilitarianism claiming that it will help people attain their personal gains in observation of their community members. Mill also suggests that the best way to implant the necessities of utilitarianism starts from the school curriculum, where utilitarianism will be manifested into the minds of people so that they become aware of the importance of acting in the best interest of the society.
Rawls’ Argument on Justice The name John Rawls is remembered by the thinking class and honored as one of the greatest contributors to the natural rights approach. Just like other renowned philosophers like Immanuel Kant, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau, the late Rawls also thought of a scenario when people lived without a central authority in command. Rawls has then constructed his theories of natural rights on a hypothetical existence of a stateless nation called the “original opposition”. Some of the historical philosophers presented their ideas in form of real experiences and not from an experimented situation. Other philosophers found it easier to call Rawls hypothetical period as the “state of nature”. Rawls seems to hold the perception that in the original position, people do not know the class they belong, what their abilities are, their status and even defining what is good (Rawls 12). Rawls defines this position as living in the “veil of ignorance”. Rawls insists that the situation where people are not aware of their profits or the conception of what is good, do not favor them and neither does it make them feel like single individuals (Rawls, p. 206). That people do not intend to lie or cheat on each other and make plans that are secretive because they do not know what their profit is and they are tempted to think that the original situation is advantageous and fair to them. According to Rawls, the fairness in justice emanates from the original position and equally exhibits the fairness of persons living in such positions. “This explains the propriety of the name justice as fairness: it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair” (Rawls 12). Following this precedent, Rawls then argues that burdens as well as benefits, in a society are distributed equally. That no one would compromise someone else’s rights in order to benefit him/her or the society at large. Therefore, Rawls holds that the individual rights are protected in the original position as a result of the disinterested nature of people and the “veil of ignorance”. In his arguments, Rawls shows a sense of individualism and insists that any person’s ideas and thoughts should be tolerated in as far as it does not cause havoc that negates social order; which he says is very crucial in maintaining the freedom both in the individual and social life (Rawls 213). Following this argument, we can then conclude that Rawls derives the bases of justice in the protection of the individual rights and the disinterested nature of citizens as long as their individual rights prevail in a tolerant scene or society. Rawls maintains that the state should construct laws based on the principles of justice and that is should only intervene when there are complications that seem to compromise the untouchableness of natural rights of individuals. Rawls holds that the existence of inviolable natural individual rights should enjoy more superiority than public interest or any other proposal relating to ethics. The base of Justice, according to Rawls is that “....each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override” (Rawls 3).
The Ideological Conflict The two theories as presented by Mill and Rawls have met at a point of conflict. The “two sides of the same coin” seek to address the concept of justice in divergent perspectives. Generally, a close look at Rawls argument reveals an individualistic type of thinking while Mill presents a collectivist thinking. One thing that makes this section of the essay challenging is that philosophy, as a subject, considers each and every explanation to be correct based on the circumstances under which it is explained. This means that both Mill and Rawls might be correct on the subject of justice and its applications to utilitarianism and natural rights approach respectively. This section of the paper is meant to prove the hypothesis by evaluating the ideological differences in the two theories, explaining: why Rawls rejects Mill’s argument that utilitarianism provides a ground for justice and; why both of them may be correct in their own contexts. In Rawls views, the two theories seem to have close ties. However, they differ in the conceptual make up of important fundamental differences. In this sense, we cannot claim that Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” works as effective as Mill’s idea of the “impartial spectator”. The two ideas are based on totally difference philosophies though they all seek to address justice in their own perspectives. Rawls’ idea of the “veil of justice” claims that both sides of the position mutually take a more “disinterested” perspective than a sympathetic one. Rawls attributes this to the veil of ignorance that serves as an obstacle for people to realize their profits and as a result, they find themselves behaving in a fair manner. “In the original position, by contrast, the parties are mutually disinterested rather than sympathetic; but lacking knowledge of their natural assets or social situation, they are forced to view their arrangements in a general way” (Rawls 187). This serves as one of the major reasons why Rawls seem to reject Mill’s argument. According to Mill’s idea of the “impartial spectator”, people are fully aware of their profits and status as well, but they make it an individual choice to act devotedly in the best interest of the society. Mill suggests that the idea of public utility supremacy over individuals should be inculcated through effective education systems. It is with this perception that Rawls considers Mill’s idea of the “impartial spectator” as sympathetic to people. Rawls argues that the concept of assigning superiority to the public utility and sympathizing with people will create a state of impersonality rather than the intended impartiality (Rawls 188). Rawls claims that the interpretation of Mill’s idea leads to two discoveries, the first one being that; the concept of impartiality can only be successful if individuals are complete altruists. This is explained by the very fact that the “impartial spectators” though fully aware of their profits and status, they still sympathetically choose to act in the interest of attaining public utility. Secondly, Mill’s idea suggests that people attain self profit from public utility. In a nut shell, Mill is selling the idea that people, being aware of their profits, can go ahead to search for their own individual benefits from public utility. Rawls terms this as being egoistic as opposed to impartial (Rawls 189). In the light of these facts, Rawls claims that the concept of utilitarianism if flowed with contractions as it, on one side, appreciates people for their impartiality and altruism yet on the other hand claim that there are benefits of acting in the interest of public utility. It is with this kind of contradiction that the application of the concept of utilitarianism in a society might prove to be hard. The interpretation assigned to Mill’s idea of impartial spectator is that people should act in the interest of public utility in order to egoistically gain individual benefits. This begs the question of what happens if the system does not satisfy their needs. Taking a scenario of a country conducting elections, how would Mill’s idea of impartial spectator work? Furthermore, whose interests does these decisions serves; the society of individuals? And finally, there cannot be a people who are complete altruists. In these texts, it is also evident that Rawls’ idea of natural rights assigns some importance to the human natural rights while Mill’s idea of impartial spectator supports societal benefits over individual natural rights. Rawls criticizes this thought by articulating that the concept of utilitarianism measures people’s values as a function of their thoughts and actions without necessarily appreciating the preciousness of human life. So in order to satisfy many people in a country, one may have to kill the minority living in the same country. This does not in any manner conform to the rules of justice. However, Mill’s can also seek to defend this analogy by arguing that it is humane and reasonable to sacrifice the minority for the survival of the majority. Taking a hypothetical situation that people are in a ship sailing and they identify a potential rapist amongst them. Mill’s idea of impartial spectator would consider this person as a threat to public interest in a bid to save the many young female children and women in the ship. An impartial agent will see this person drown in water defending the ideology that he is working for the public interest. However, free and rational agents would try to put themselves in the shoes of this man. No matter the kinds of crime the man has committed before or intends to commit in the future, Rawls “veil of ignorance” would still assign value to the life of this man. This draws a clear difference between the natural rights and the concept of utilitarianism. Mill’s utilitarianism measures values in accordance with thought while Rawls’ veil of ignorance theory is concerned with the preciousness of the human life. These form the basic foundational difference between utilitarianism and theory of natural rights.
Individual Argument Having analyzed the situation, I have realized that both Mill’s and Rawls’ ideologies also have some contradictions that are worth raising. Rawls might be right to say that the utilitarian view is contradictive in the making. The principle of utilitarianism contains the concept of sympathy and impartiality coupled with self benefit in public utility. Indeed, when the theories merge together as a whole, they create a conspicuous confusion since a person cannot claim to be an altruist if he/she embraces the utilitarian principle with a goal to maximize his/her profits. Alternatively, a person cannot accept to embrace utilitarianism in order to maximize his/her own benefits if indeed he/she is an altruist. However, from a personal dimension, the concept of impersonality does not only apply to Mill’s ideology but also to Rawls’. Do we get to define people living in the veil of ignorance and not aware of their profits as impersonal. Then I think that Mill, with his call for importance of wisdom, have an answer to this. Personally, I would prefer to be an egoist who is very much aware of the underlying realities and the benefits that accrues to me than be a disinterested citizen living in the veil of ignorance and is typically not aware of what accrues of my benefits. It is my opinion that Rawls concept of “veil of ignorance” is not practical in the contemporary world. This is because the 21st century has seen people raised in an informed societal setting whereby people are fully informed of their identities and profits that accrue to them. In the today’s world, it is hard to find people putting themselves in others’ shoes and if the so exist such people they are very few. This, due to the competitive nature of the contemporary world, put Rawls theory in play and as a result I suggest that people be taught to focus on their own profits instead of others’. It is also my opinion that Mill’s idea of utilitarianism can be solid if it is amended to remove the elements of contradiction and prevent if from violation the individual rights of natural justice in the quest of obtaining public utility. Existing literature as well as observational experiments has proved that human beings cannot be complete altruists and even if they find a way to act like one, it would be hard to tell whether it is genuine or egoistical. In the contemporary world, people should contribute to the general happiness of the state. However, this also requires the state to create a peaceful and enhancing environment where people are allowed to choose their lifestyles. This mechanism should be constructed to endorse punishment to persons who seek to interfere with the individual rights. The real situation in the ground cannot work with either of the theories as presented by Mill and Rawls. It would require a combination of both theories with the exemptions of the outliers.
Conclusion
As reiterated before, in the world of philosophy, it is difficult to be right just as much as it is to be wrong. This paper has assessed the full extent of the hypothesis and holds a number of findings. Firstly, due to the contradictive nature of the principles of utilitarianism, Rawls is justified to reject Mill’s position on justice. This is attributed to the fact that there cannot be altruists who embrace utilitarianism for individual benefit let alone the fact that altruism is not achievable in any society. The other reason why Mill stands corrected is that the philosophies that govern utilitarianism do not necessarily reflect on the principles of justice. This is explained by the case example of a rapist in a ship and how the two theories could have handled the situation. Moreover, it is important to note that the paper only agrees to Rawls’ criticism of Mill’s ideas of utilitarianism but does not entirely agree with Rawls’ idea of the “veil of ignorance”. By definition of the natural rights as presented in the paper, Rawls constructed the theory based on a hypothetical existence of a stateless nation. This mean the natural rights theory remains to be imaginary as opposed to the underlying subject of justice that is real. A critical analysis of the “real situation in the ground” has confirmed that both theories cannot survive on their own but rather conjointly, with the exemption of outliers. Therefore, the paper concludes that further research and reconstruction of the theories needs to take effect as the analysis has only proved the partial correctness of the hypothesis.

Work Cited
Mill, John S. Utilitarism =: Der Utilitarismus. London [u.a.: Dent, 1910. Print.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, 1999. Print.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Justice, Equality, and Rights

...1 JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND RIGHTS by John Tasioulas For R. Crisp (ed), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Ethics 1. The Nature of Justice Philosophers have advocated many divergent views as to the content of the correct principles of justice. In contemporary philosophy, for example, the live options range from the austere libertarian thesis that the claims of justice are limited to a small class of rights that protect us from coercive interference by others to more radically egalitarian doctrines that mandate the large-scale redistribution of wealth and other goods. But there is a prior, conceptual question: is there an illuminating sense in which these disagreements are aptly described as concerned with justice? Alternatively put, is there a concept of justice of which these rival accounts can be interpreted as offering different conceptions? (Rawls 1971/1999: 5-6). If not, the dispiriting conclusion looms that these disputes are „verbal‟ rather than genuine, like a debate about the nature of „banks‟ in which one party has in mind financial institutions and the other party the sloping bits of land at the sides of rivers. One answer is that the concept of justice marks out the entire domain of moral evaluation, or at least the whole of inter-personal morality, excluding only moral concerns relating purely to oneself or to non-persons, such as animals. This expansive reading of justice – as (inter-personal) moral rightness or virtue – has a venerable pedigree. The......

Words: 13621 - Pages: 55

Premium Essay

Q&a Jurisprudence

...R outledge Revision: Questions & Answers  Jurisprudence 2011–2012 Each Routledge Q&A contains approximately 50 questions on topics commonly found on exam papers, with answer plans and comprehensive suggested answers. Each book also offers valuable advice as to how to approach and tackle exam questions and how to focus your revision effectively. New Aim Higher and Common  Pitfalls boxes will also help you to identify how to go that little bit further in order to get the very best marks and highlight areas of confusion. And now there are further opportunities to hone and perfect your exam technique online. New editions publishing in 2011: Civil Liberties & Human Rights Commercial Law Company Law Constitutional & Administrative Law Contract Law Criminal Law Employment Law English Legal System Routledge Q&A series Equity & Trusts European Union Law Evidence Family Law Jurisprudence Land Law Medical Law Torts For a full listing, visit http://www.routledge.com/textbooks/revision R outledge Revision: Questions & Answers Jurisprudence 2011–2012 David Brooke Senior Lecturer in Law and Module Leader in Jurisprudence at Leeds Metropolitan University Fifth edition published 2011 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the U S A and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library,......

Words: 105136 - Pages: 421

Premium Essay

Politics, Theology

...POLITICS, THEOLOGY AND HISTORY RAYMOND PLANT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Politics, Theology and History is a major new book by a prominent academic and an active politician. It ranges widely across the disciplines of theology, political theory and philosophy and poses acute questions about the basic moral foundations of liberal societies. Lord Plant focuses on the role that religious belief can and ought to play in argument about public policy in a pluralistic society. He examines the potential political implications of Christian belief and the ways in which it may be deployed in political debate. The book is a contribution to the modern debate about the moral pluralism of western liberal societies, discussing the place of religious belief in the formation of policy and asking what sorts of issues in modern society might be the legitimate objects of a Christian social and political concern. Raymond Plant has written an important study of the relationship between religion and politics which will be of value to students, academics, politicians, church professionals, policy makers and all concerned with the moral fabric of contemporary life. r ay m on d pl an t is Professor of European Political Thought at the University of Southampton and a Member of the House of Lords. He was a Home affairs spokesperson for the Labour Party from 1992 to 1996, and Master of St Catherine's College, Oxford, from 1994 to 2000. Lord Plant's main publications are Social and Moral Theory in......

Words: 144283 - Pages: 578

Premium Essay

Good Life

...mTELECOURSE STUDY GUIDE FOR The Examined Life FOURTH EDITION author J. P. White Chair, Department of Philosophy Santa Barbara City College contributing author Manuel Velasquez Professor of Philosophy Santa Clara University This Telecourse Study Guide for The Examined Life is part of a collegelevel introduction to philosophy telecourse developed in conjunction with the video series The Examined Life, and the text Philosophy: A Text with Readings, tenth edition, by Manuel Velasquez, The Charles Dirksen Professor, Santa Clara University. The television series The Examined Life was designed and produced by INTELECOM Intelligent Telecommunications, Netherlands Educational Broadcasting Corporation (TELEAC/NOT), and Swedish Educational Broadcasting Company (UR) Copyright © 2007, 2005, 2002, 1999 by INTELECOM Intelligent Telecommunications All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of INTELECOM Intelligent Telecommunications, 150 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 300, Pasadena, California 91105-1937. ISBN: 0-495-10302-0 Contents Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Lesson One — What is Philosophy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

Words: 78103 - Pages: 313

Premium Essay

Philo

...good and bad, right and wrong, duties and rights, etc. Hence the concern is with the understanding of the use of these terms, their logical forms and the objects to which they refer. Sometimes the concern of meta-ethicist is even more fundamental: What is the possibility of moral philosophy. D. Normative: Ethics is normative, not in the way that logic is, namely. With regard to the correctness of our thinking, but with regard to the goodness of our living, the right orientation of our existence. It is a practical science, not simply because it treats human action, but also because it aims at guiding this. Moralists are not content to describe human conduct: they intend to judge and rectify it. They propose rules and give warning, they provide counsels and issue precepts, so as to make clear to men the path of right living and to help them walk upon it. E. Normative can be understood in two ways: 1. Teleological (Telos) End, Goal, Fulfillment,...

Words: 17119 - Pages: 69

Premium Essay

Political Obligation

...2007; substantive revision Fri Apr 30, 2010 To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one's country or state. On that point there is almost complete agreement among political philosophers. But how does one acquire such an obligation, and how many people have really done what is necessary to acquire it? Or is political obligation more a matter of being than of doing — that is, of simply being a member of the country or state in question? To those questions many answers have been given, and none now commands widespread assent. Indeed, a number of contemporary political philosophers deny that a satisfactory theory of political obligation either has been or can be devised. Others, however, continue to believe that there is a solution to what is commonly called “the problem of political obligation,” and they are presently engaged in lively debate not only with the skeptics but also with one another on the question of which theory, if any, provides the solution to the problem. Whether political obligation is the central or fundamental problem of political philosophy, as some have maintained (e.g., McPherson), may well be doubted. There is no doubt, however, that the history of political thought is replete with attempts to provide a satisfactory account of political obligation, from the time of Socrates to the present. These attempts have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years, but they have brought us no closer to agreement on a......

Words: 12818 - Pages: 52

Premium Essay

Ethics

...Metaethics is a branch of analytic philosophy that explores the status, foundations, and scope of moral values, properties, and words. Whereas the fields of applied ethics and normative theoryfocus on what is moral, metaethics focuses on what morality itself is. Just as two people may disagree about the ethics of, for example, physician-assisted suicide, while nonetheless agreeing at the more abstract level of a general normative theory such as Utilitarianism, so too may people who disagree at the level of a general normative theory nonetheless agree about the fundamental existence and status of morality itself, or vice versa. In this way, metaethics may be thought of as a highly abstract way of thinking philosophically about morality. For this reason, metaethics is also occasionally referred to as “second-order” moral theorizing, to distinguish it from the “first-order” level of normative theory. Metaethical positions may be divided according to how they respond to questions such as the following: * Ÿ  What exactly are people doing when they use moral words such as “good” and “right”? * Ÿ  What precisely is a moral value in the first place, and are such values similar to other familiar sorts of entities, such as objects and properties? * Ÿ  Where do moral values come from—what is their source and foundation? * Ÿ  Are some things morally right or wrong for all people at all times, or does morality instead vary from person to person, context to context, or......

Words: 21310 - Pages: 86

Free Essay

Review of Law in Context

...NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION: USE ONLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH COPYRIGHT: DAVID RISSTROM AN INTERPRETATION OF LAW IN CONTEXT Bottomley, S., Gunningham, N. and Parker, S., 1991, Law in Context, The Federation Press, Leichhardt. { } = additional material from lectures. ( ) = my comments. (See ‘x’) refers to book page number. A short (somewhat boring) message from the summary executioner before you dive in; These notes are an interpretation of the book Law in Context and the lectures given as part of the 1991 Course. They are not a satisfactory substitution for reading the text. You are only likely to get the maximum value out of this summary by reading it in conjunction with the text. The question of ‘the law in whose context’ may be worth keeping in mind as you read. This is an interpretation seen through my eyes, not yours. My comments are not unbiased, as it is as equally unlikely that yours may be. So my ‘advice’ is consider what is said here and in the book considering the need to understand the ‘mechanics’ that help make sense of the more involved themes that develop in the book as you progress through Law in Context. The observations, important in their own right, may be particularly useful for seeing how their often ubiquitous expression is taken as ‘normal’ in the areas of wider society, such as in discussions of economics and power. It is unlikely that you will find any ‘right answers’ from this summary, but I do hope it helps you in......

Words: 51747 - Pages: 207

Free Essay

George Crowder

...lPolitical Theory http://ptx.sagepub.com Two Concepts of Liberal Pluralism George Crowder Political Theory 2007; 35; 121 DOI: 10.1177/0090591706297642 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ptx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/121 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Political Theory can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ptx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ptx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Downloaded from http://ptx.sagepub.com at Ebsco Electronic Journals Service (EJS) on September 6, 2008 Two Concepts of Liberal Pluralism George Crowder Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia Political Theory Volume 35 Number 2 April 2007 121-146 © 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/0090591706297642 http://ptx.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com Is the liberal state entitled to intervene in the internal affairs of its nonliberal minorities to promote individual autonomy as a public ideal, or should it tolerate the nonliberal practices of such groups in the name of legitimate diversity? This problem can be fruitfully approached from the perspective of Isaiah Berlin’s notion of “value pluralism.” According to William Galston, value pluralism privileges a form of liberalism that is maximally accommodating of nonliberal groups and their practices. I agree that......

Words: 12946 - Pages: 52

Premium Essay

Moral Paper

...The Moral Compass Leadership for a Free World Lindsay J Thompson Leadership Ethics Course Manual ~ © 2005 Lindsay J Thompson ~ All rights reserved 2 THE MORAL COMPASS Leadership for a Free World Table of Contents introduction page 5 core learning page 9 the leadership labyrinth page 11 the m oral com pass page 27 values and global value creation page 73 corporate citizenship page 93 bibliography page 109 the case lab page 113 Leadership Ethics Course Manual ~ © 2005 Lindsay J Thompson ~ All rights reserved 3 Leadership Ethics Course Manual ~ © 2005 Lindsay J Thompson ~ All rights reserved 4 introduction Moral Leadership for a Free World If you read a newspaper this morning, you almost surely read something related to morality, leadership, and freedom. From international relations to neighborhood and family life, concerns about leadership ethics and human welfare are the focus of news, political movements, and civic initiatives. Emotionally engaging terms like “moral leadership,” “the free world” and “human freedom” are often used in the media without much explanation or clarification. Momentous decisions are made and life choices established in the name of values attached to these and similar terms. What do we really mean by “moral leadership,” or “freedom?” If two people use these terms in a conversation, do they explicitly share a common understanding of them or just assume common ground? For......

Words: 29833 - Pages: 120

Free Essay

Avon in Global Market in 2009, Managing and Developing a Global Workforce

...submitted to the Department of Philosophy of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2007 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 Abstract This dissertation analyses the problem of how to create more just and democratic global governing institutions, exploring the approach of a more formal system of collective decision-making by the three main actors in global society: governments, civil society and the business sector. The thesis seeks to make a contribution by presenting for discussion an addition to the system of international governance that is morally justified and potentially practicable, referred to as ‘Collective Management’. The thesis focuses on the role of civil society, analysing arguments for and against a role for civil society that goes beyond ‘soft power’ to......

Words: 127847 - Pages: 512

Premium Essay

Religion, Fundamentalism and Ethnicity Global Perspective

...New Zealand Context 3 21 Part Two: Communitarian Responses to Liberalism Introduction to Part Two 61 3 Civic Republicanism: Michael Sandel 63 4 The Politics of Recognition: Charles Taylor 83 Part Three: Multiculturalism Introduction to Part Three 105 5 Multicultural Citizenship: Will Kymlicka 107 6 Common Citizenship in a Multicultural Society: Bhikhu Parekh 151 Part Four: Critical Responses to Multiculturalism Introduction to Part Four 187 7 A Politics of Difference: Iris Marion Young 189 8 Against White Paranoid Nationalism: Ghassan Hage 223 9 Egalitarian Liberalism: Brian Barry 243 Part Five: Concluding Reflections 10 Diversity, Democracy, Justice 271 Afterword 306 References 307 Index of Names 335 iii Tables 1 Levy’s typology...

Words: 135228 - Pages: 541

Free Essay

Rawlsian Arguments

...Forthcoming: 72 Fordham L. Rev. 1857 (2004) RAWLSIAN FAIRNESS AND REGIME CHOICE IN THE LAW OF ACCIDENTS Gregory C. Keating* The political philosophy of John Rawls is pregnant with implications for the tort theory. Our law of intentional and accidental physical injury is rich with the rhetoric of reasonableness and fairness, and these ideals lie at the heart of Rawls’s political philosophy. The figure of the reasonable person is central both to the law of negligence—where it serves as the master criterion of justified risk imposition—and to the law of intentional torts—where it helps to define the contours of permissible self-defense, the sensibility by which the offensiveness of contact in battery is measured, and the content of the consent given in connection with matters as diverse as The concept of contact sports and medical operations.1 reasonableness figures prominently in strict liability as well. The intentional infliction of unreasonable harm triggers liability for damages in the law of nuisance, and strict liability in general can be fruitfully understood as a form of liability applicable when the conduct which leads to accidental injury is reasonable, but the failure to make reparation for the harm done is unreasonable.2 Principles of fairness figure more prominently in the judicial rhetoric of strict products liability than economic ideas of efficient precaution and efficient insurance do.3 * William T. Dalessi Professor of Law, USC Law School. For instruction...

Words: 32629 - Pages: 131

Premium Essay

Homework

... WHAT WE CAN’T NOT KNOW J. BUDZISZEWSKI WHAT WE CAN’T NOT KNOW A Guide Revised and Expanded Edition IGNATIUS PRESS SAN FRANCISCO First edition published by Spence Publishing Company, Dallas, Texas ©2003 by J. Budziszewski All rights reserved Cover illustration: Comstock/Fotosearch.com Cover design by Sam Torode ©2004 Spence Publishing Company Used by permission Published in 2011 by Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©2003, 2011 J. Budziszewski All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-58617-481-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2010927673 Printed in the United States of America To my grandparents Julian and Janina Budziszewski, long departed, not forgotten The mind of man is the product of live Law; it thinks by law, it dwells in the midst of law, it gathers from law its growth; with law, therefore, can it alone work to any result. —George MacDonald CONTENTS PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION A New Phase of an Old Tradition ix PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION Whom This Book Is For xix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xxiii INTRODUCTION The Moral Common Ground 3 I THE LOST WORLD Things We Can’t Not Know 1 2 What It Is That We Can’t Not Know 3 Could We Get By Knowing Less? II EXPLAINING THE LOST WORLD 4 The First and Second Witnesses 5 The Third and Fourth Witnesses 6 Some Objections vii 19 29 54 83 93 116 viii WHAT WE CAN’T NOT KNOW III HOW THE LOST WORLD WAS LOST 7 Denial 8 Eclipse 149 173 IV RECOVERING......

Words: 89540 - Pages: 359

Premium Essay

Ethics

...ETHICS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Third Edition This page intentionally left blank ETHICS IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Third Edition George W. Reynolds Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States Ethics in Information Technology, Third Edition by George W. Reynolds VP/Editorial Director: Jack Calhoun Publisher: Joe Sabatino Senior Acquisitions Editor: Charles McCormick Jr. Senior Product Manager: Kate Hennessy Mason Development Editor: Mary Pat Shaffer Editorial Assistant: Nora Heink Marketing Manager: Bryant Chrzan Marketing Coordinator: Suellen Ruttkay Content Product Manager: Jennifer Feltri Senior Art Director: Stacy Jenkins Shirley Cover Designer: Itzhack Shelomi Cover Image: iStock Images Technology Project Manager: Chris Valentine Manufacturing Coordinator: Julio Esperas Copyeditor: Green Pen Quality Assurance Proofreader: Suzanne Huizenga Indexer: Alexandra Nickerson Composition: Pre-Press PMG © 2010 Course Technology, Cengage Learning ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution, information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written......

Words: 204343 - Pages: 818