Good philosophizing generally starts with posing the right questions. Good questions help to clarify issues and to make finding good answer easier; poorly framed questions can obscure issues or blind you to possible solutions. Miller's introductory chapter is full of questions. What do you think of the way he frames the principal questions and topics for a theory of global justice? What does he think a theory of global justice is about? What does he see as the main challenges to such theorizing? Do you think he is setting up his inquiry in a helpful and open-minded way? or do you think he is unfairly excluding some perspectives right from the start?You don't have to answer each of these questions in your one-page response. But use them to guide your reflections on how he is framing the issues for his book.
UPDATE: Please don't hesitate each week to post any of your developing thoughts about the readings as comments on a thread like this. That way everybody in the class can start thinking about your perspectives even before the class begins. Blog comments are best when they're concise and make one or two points, so you probably don't want to post your whole 500-word paper!
7 comments:
Professor Norman:
I have written a meditation on Miller's argument for a contextual understanding of global justice that seems to be rooted in the idea of an international system of "nation-states."
I disagree with this premise because I believe it gives rise to assumptions that obscure real impediments to justice in many countries of the world. My paper explains my positions more fully.
My question to you: Would this essay be sufficient for the purpose of the assignment?
-- Leon D'Souza
Leon,
There are plenty of ways one can do these little papers. In general, you want to show you understand what an author is trying to do, and then offer some reflection or analysis of that. The strategy you describe sounds reasonable as long as it's tied closely enough to the reading and just doesn't jump off immediately into the development of your own view and argument. There will be other occasions to work out and defend your own views in class and in your term paper. Think of these as proactive participation; something to help us set up a better classroom discussion.
My chief problems with the chapter:
1. The questions are so many and so varied that they tend to make the intent of the chapter, and the book, a little bit harder to discern. Framing is nice, and useful, but focus is better.
2. If Miller wants to explicate in this book how his "contextual justice" is the superior understanding of global justice, he is welcome to, but he must first give other theories, like "social justice writ large," fair play in their strongest form. Perhaps he does this later in the book, but so far he has only succeeded in disagreeing with their chief claim (national boundaries are irrelevant or minimal in a conception of justice) without much justification. Since a contextual argument depends on the distinction between domestic and global justice, I would be much happier if he explained more thoroughly why living in a state together is all that important a part of justice rather than just claiming it is.
Kevin,
I concur with your assessment. To my mind, the "citizenship relationship" claim is especially difficult. Miller seems to presuppose the fact of the "nation-state," which I find highly contestable.
Many countries that suffer grave injustices in today's world are not nation-states but rather sovereign states that circumscribe many nations. There isn't necessarily a special affinity for the fellow man in these places, negating the whole idea of a compassionate and caring political community.
If people in a country aren't attentive and responsive to the needs of fellow citizens, should we not have international institutions that can facilitate the restoration of justice? And wouldn't that call for a different theory of global justice than the one Miller suggests?
Just some thoughts.
The problems of the nation-state or even its failure does not preclude the possibility of the conception of justice being context dependent. At the bottom of 13 to the top of 14, the relevant principles of justice depend on the circumstances of the distribution and the "kind of relationship that exists among the people among whom the distribution is occurring." It would be difficult to argue that justice is not context depend; that is not to say that there is not an absolute conception of justice, but rather that when considering a situation the circumstances may affect which of the relevant principle(s) hold if any.
There can of course be disagreement about what the circumstances required are, but I think as long as we subdivide the planet into smaller, legitimate political communities that their existence has some bearing on the conception of justice.
I think Miller poses a useful question in his initial framing of the argument. He asks: "Should we think...in terms of a global minimum level of rights and resources below which no one should be allowed to fall, and if so how should we decide where to set this threshold?" (p.5)
I agree that advancing a theory of global justice independent of context is perhaps implausible. So could we suggest a hybrid? Why not a system that defines global justice contextually while operating in conjunction with robust international institutional arrangements that value justice over national autonomy?
An argument against this, of course, is that it might be quite difficult to implement, what with fierce expressions of national self-determination. But then fashioning smaller and more legitimate political communities seems equally problematic.
Post a Comment