Political Philosophy

Rawls POJ

1) Each person is that equal right to most extensive system of equal and basic liberties compatible with a similar system for all. 2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity. The first liberty dictates that we will wish to give priority to liberties and rights, and achieve our deserts: yet the difference principle implies that inequalities should be allowed if they're to everyone's advantage. Freedom of the wealthy is permitted, as long as it benefits the worst off.

Natural Rights

1) God-given, and a constituent of humanity. 2) Pre social. 3) Universal and available to all humans. 4) Absolute, it trumps all other moral considerations. 5) Inalienable - unable to be taken. They're independent of domestic law, culture, or epoch. Locke: Natural rights provide justification for political dissent. Laws are just if they comply with the law of nature. "Men living together, according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature." We have a right to punish evil, domestically and internationally, as we're all born equal and bound by moral law. Any unjust violence is 'war against all mankind'. Free and equal persons can expect justice. We have natural rights to life, health, liberty, possessions, justice, equality, and to punish, all founded on moral and religious premises.

State of Nature

A psychological or moral thesis that provides a biological or political account of our dispositions.

Locke

Accepted man's propensity to "prey upon the fruits of other men's labours..." and therefore recognised the basic need for security - to protect property essentially.

Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau

All appeal to a 'state of nature' - a hypothetical scenario meant to uncover the unchanging fundamentals of human nature, away from laws and social structure.

Hobbes

Argues that man is a selfish, egoistical creature. Hobbes identifies a primary function of the state: to maintain security and stability. Thus, law and order is a prerequisite for any other functions.

Aristotle

"Man is by nature a social animal"

Marx on Rights

Feels rights are ideological, not universal, are are a product of socio-economic conditions. Marx questions the rationality of the right to property - there's no logical connection between working the land and excluding others. Private property ensures the working class don't develop independently. Exercising political rights requires economic freedom, thus the rights of the poor are purely theoretical. e.g. court fees prevent the poor from accessing justice. Locke: People shouldn't take more land than necessary, and there must be equal opportunity to acquire it. It can be argued that the first condition is ambiguous and doesn't acknowledge preference; the second is ignorant of the scarcity of resources. Redistributive justice doesn't deal with the root of injustice; rights maintain division of labour and class system. Rights emphasise individuality and undermine solidarity and unity. However, individual freedom underpins all sense of reciprocation and is vital to many conceptions of 'the good life'.

Desert Criticisms

However, equality of opportunity isn't equality of fair opportunity. All children seemingly have equal opportunities in education, but do they all arrive at the starting line together, free of advantage. Perhaps we should intervene to benefit us all: However, intervention can be refuted as it's, a) too costly for those who have to pay for it, and b) Ineffective because you cannot resist the working of nature. Redistribution will be redundant as some are better suited to survive - life is unequal, some will always suffer droughts, poverty, and famine - is this fair though? The natural course of events doesn't make it the right course. b) > c) doesn't logically follow. To develop our talents we usually need teachers, resources - Beckham owes a debt to society - which is paid through the products of his work.

Positive Freedom

I don't just follow my desires, but I'm able to reflect on and select appropriate desires. This gives full meaning to 'I could have done otherwise'. Freedom is self-determination; the ability to unlock potential that leads to flourishing; so freedom is autonomy. Mill argues that negative freedom will mould the autonomous individual through experience and independent reasoning. Positive freedom is parasitic on negative freedom. Mill's position describes an ideal; it is equally likely that people left on their own may remain trapped and not progress. Advocates of this 'higher liberty' stress intervention in order to empower individuals and allow them to achieve self-control. A pupil is coerced into attending school in order to overcome ignorance, and is thus 'forced to be free' - Rousseau.

Marxist State Against

If HN is malleable and reflects our environment, it's hard to see how we would become alienate. We'd surely just accept our limited potential? However, if creativity is our species essence, who's to say that egoism and selfishness isn't part of it too. Marx makes the assumption that once the economic base is equal, social relations will harmonise. However, this conflicts with our species essence - if we're creative and able to accommodate new needs, there will surely be disagreements. Marxism relies upon society holding a uniform opinion and resisting disagreements - we can object that this claims lacks empirical evidence. In the absence of laws, there is a real danger of tyranny. In an unregulated society, charismatic or strong leaders can emerge and prevent fair and equal discussion. In practise, communist societies have been accused of manipulating people and undermining autonomy - George Orwell 1984.

L Neutrality

It's difficult for the state to stay neutral. If we require equal opportunities, laws must be introduced to secure this - therefore intervention is required. Classic liberals would reply that people need to suffer the consequences of their choices in order to learn.

WL Evaluation

It's questionable that we would necessarily choose these principles. Those who prefer a more competitive system may prefer a more incentive-based desert system and only a minimum safety net of welfare. I may rationally prefer an unequal society that doesn't exclusively benefit the worst off. A utilitarian could claim that improving the average position in society would maximise happiness, because the umber of poor may be a minority. Furthermore, we may genuinely disagree over values about what model of society we favour. Rawls' original position is implausible in reality - it would be virtually impossible not to allow our values and interests affect our decisions. If we're ignorant about our conception of the good life, how can we make a decision about what a just society would be like? Aristotle would argue that for a society to be cohesive, extremes of wealth and poverty must be avoided = the wealthy will become independent and the poor will not be able to contribute much. Marx: Why are inequalities of wealth allowed at all?

Need Evaluation

Marx argues our species essence is creative - surely this will spark different ideas of how the vision should be achieved? Marx assumes that a cooperative effort will create abundance of resources; the history of communism proves there is no direct link. Public ownership will dissolve underserved inequalities, but is deserved equality? If I work for extra food, which I can swap for a better standard of living - one can own property, but it isn't necessarily exploitative or undeserved. It's difficult to maintain unity between workers without the 'rule of each by all the rest' and a 'tyranny of the majority' - Mill. Defining 'basic needs' implies an agreed theory of human nature and necessitates distinguishing between needs and desire, which differ culturally. Different theories of human nature demand different essential needs - appeal to need presupposes that we have a consensus of what constitutes a functioning human.

Wolff

Political Philosophy may begin with a 'descriptive study', but becomes a normative account of what should be the case.

Welfare Liberalism

Rawls invites us to consider justice from the 'original position' behind a veil of ignorance - in order to agree on rules that aren't just advantageous to us. We forget, a) specific information about individual qualities and talents, b) special interests, beliefs, and values, and c) are ignorant of our destiny. Our ignorance makes us cancel out advantages from accidental fortune, for example, inheritance, giving us equal, fair opportunity. Not knowing if we'll thrive or fail, we ensure that those at the bottom receive support and maximise minimum welfare provision. We distribute wealth to 1) Ensure that everyone starts with a fair opportunity, e.g. a good, universal education, 2) to support the weak and vulnerable, e.g. a public healthcare system. Rawls argues that we will accept this, as it's just and in our self interest.

What are Rights?

Rights confer advantageous positions on the possessor: They either a) give special justification for interfering with another's freedom, or b) Justify resisting interference or coercion. They offer control over our lives and limit other people's power. Hohfeld's four legal advantages of rights: 1) Liberties, i.e. not refraining frmo an action. 2) Claims on others to perform duties. 3) Power enabling me to alter other's liberties. 4) Immunities limiting the power of others interfering.

CS For

As a result of being born into society, man has obligations not granted by a contract. E.g. a parent's duty to care for their children. We identify ourselves with the values and relationships with others in society - we are interdependent and have a sense of loyalty. People are 'encumbered' with values that are a result of their cultural upbringing. People discover themselves as individuals through contrast with institutions. Their political sense arises out of personal experience and their social environment. Society is like a human body; it has adapted and evolved to solve problems and new challenges and developed harmonious internal relations that allow its survival. Aristotle: The body is prior to the parts - A foot is nothing without a body; an individual is nothing without society. Like in a household, in society there will be natural superiors and inferiors because some have the ability to lead. Thus, there is a natural hierarchy. Disruption to the harmonious body could destroy it, so evolutionary change is preferable to a revolution. Conservatism stresses the importance of tradition and experience, rather than rational ideas.

PF Evaluation

Being forced into freedom requires that acting rationally means overcoming selfishness and reaching self-control. This means that one is encouraged to accept the common good and a set of values about what freedom is. Telling people what makes them free is manipulative - illustrated by the Nazi CC slogan 'work makes you free'. The individual is 'dwarfed' - they 'misunderstand' - are 'unenlightened' and 'misled'. - Mill The argument for positive freedom rests on a leader knowing what the good is, however, the individual would have made the decision if he were sufficiently informed and rational. Mill argues it is just to stop a man walking across an unsafe bridge if he is ignorant of the dangers. However, if he has 'full use of the reflective faculty' and is able to make an informed decision, he should be able to choose whether he crosses or not - PF is the ability to make a rational choice.

Anarchy

Believe in natural human sympathy and co-operation. Any power exercised by the state is illegitimate and the root of social ills and competitive behaviour. The key to survival is co-operation and mutual support. Hobbes would argue that our selfish nature is what led to the creation of authoritative states - Anarchists would respond that aggressive law and oppression doesn't foster the more positive aspects of human nature. Proudhon argues that voluntary, peaceful ones should replace coercive institutions. What one chooses to do is no concern to the state. Most laws reflect the rich and powerful class of society and defend private property (often acquired through illegal means). The people, for all to enjoy, should own private property. Proudhon declares, 'Property is theft'.

Rights and Utilitarianism

Bentham - natural rights are 'nonsense on stilts' - rights cannot be based on metaphysical unknowns or social contracts, they are a product of society. There are moral rights determined by the principle of utility - the law ought to protect these. Mill rejects rightsa s anything independent of utility and defends rights-based interests, which maximise well being. Rights are interests which ought to be socially protected in order to maximise utility. Utility rightfully constrains others from violating people's rights. So, freedom of speech is a) in the interests of the individual, as self-expression nurtures originality and appreciation of truth. Rights lead to flourishing individuals, which leads to social progress. Institution of rights leads to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Provision of rights enhances essential freedoms and stops people worrying about potential happiness.

Rights

Burke attacks attempts to reform society based on a prior notions of rights, arguing that generalisations about rights are context-dependent. Paine argues that all humans have rights, regardless of creed, nationality, and gender. These rights are pre-society, and are available to all rational persons. Conservatives would argue that rights aren't above tradition - they're to be tested empirically and not be to be abstractions. However, can the conservative response protect us against tyranny and exploitation?

Distributive Justice

Concerned with the distribution of goods. Competing conceptions on which principles distribution should be based on: Desert, merit, human rights, needs, and utility. Locke - God gave the earth to the industrious; our natural rights include property rights. Mill: The free market is the most effective method of production and distribution. The freedom entailed maximises happiness. He accepts a large degree of economic equality, but faces the objection that social utility may override rights to property, free trade and negative liberty. Conservatism: Believes in desert theory, like that in Plato's republic. A just society requires some state intervention to provide opportunities and redistribution. Rawls: Inequality must be arranged to benefit the least advantaged. Nozick: Attempts to impose a patterned theory of justice is inconsistent with individual liberty. Furthermore, the just state recognises entitlement to legally acquire property and shouldn't interfere. Property could be distributed unequally, but it'd be unjust for a state to interfere. However, we can reply that the free market is destructive and alienating. Positive freedoms will be maximised by distribution according to need.

Conservatist State

Conservatism distrust political rationalism and radical change. Ruling is an art and mystery best discovered through evolution and tradition. Man gains his identity from the society he's born into. Rejects the social contract between autonomous individuals. Our ability to reason is limited as we're only a small part of the whole. (No appeal to natural qualities). Law, order and security should be the main interests of the state.

Natural Desert

Conservatives like Burke appeal to the natural course of events as the working of nature, and use this to justify hierarchy. Those who are naturally able deserve to repa the rewards of their talent. Spencer: "Each individual ought to receive the benefits and evils of his own nature and consequent conduct". Argument: a) I own my body. b) I own my talents. c) I own the produts of my talents. E.g. David Beckham is entitled to enormous wealth as he works hard and utilises his talent - compatible with 'Survival of the fittest".

Rights

Equality is in conflict with liberty. The talented will disrupt the drive towards egalitarianism. Nozick tells the tale of Wilt Chamberlain, a famous basketball player who agrees to play if the fans pay an extra 25 cents - this allegory justifies large wealth creation if it based on consent and is fair and legal. Redistributing Wilt's profit will be stealing legal profit and denying the wishes of the people. Tax = Asking people to work for nothing/the state. Right to property is an essential part of liberty - redistribution contradicts this right. Difference in talent, the right to equal liberty and to hold legally acquired possessions means inequality of wealth is justified, If property is legally acquired, it is a violation of freedom to remove it.

Conservatism

Expertise is needed to rule - reminiscent of Plato'os philosopher kings. Human nature is self-interested, impulsive ad alcking in reason (Burke) - liberty is therefore complex. A clear strain of PF is found in the form of paternalistic guidance through education, church and the state. Conservatives are sceptical of political rationalism and 'a priori' values. The state should be concerned with providing security, moral consensus and legal framework. Social order is extremely important; a natural hierarchy is inevitable and acceptable. Within this framework, NF can be enjoyed by the citizen.

Prerequisite

For Mill, doing as one desires and reaping the consequences allows us to develop and choose wisely. It can be argued NF is a prerequisite of PF> It will be facilitated if people aren't subject to strong social conditioning or the 'tyranny of the majority'. It can be argued that we cannot be free unless we are free from constraing.

Marxist State

HN is dependent on the prevailing socio-economic conditions of the time. The 'essence of men' is the sum of the productive forces. The nature of the state and who is in control depends on who is in control of the means of production. The law isn't an expression of justice; it reflects the interests of the dominant class. "It has just as little independent history as religion." - Marx. "Men need and always have needed each other" - People develop and realise their potential through relationships with others. Freedom means the free association of individuals who can develop all sides of their characters. In a capitalist state, work is soul-destroying and alienating. A revolution is needed to take control of the means of production and bring workers "into harmony with their essence." Eventually, it'll lead to communist consciousness and the state will 'wither away'.

Negative Freedom

Hobbes: Liberty is the absence of obstacles that impede the individual from exercising his power. So freedom, to Hobbes is the absence of impediments to actions. Hobbes: The law is a barrier to an individual satisfying their desires. Liberty is 'silence of the laws.' However, my freedom can be restrained by many thing - gravity (impeding my ability to fly) - we lack freedom if others coerce us.

Anarchism Against

Holds contradictory views of human nature: (1) there are universal human qualities (rationality and sympathy) but (2) the self is shaped by society. How do we distinguish what's a universal or social product?

Human Rights

Independent of religious belief. These stem from essential characteristics of our nature: autonomy, self-awareness/identity, self-control, rationality, the need to form relationships, a sense of interests, and communication through a developed language. Humans thus understand significant choices in life and understand co-relative duties are necessary. These concepts underpin the need for moral relationships. Hart: "There are natural limits as imposed by basic features of the human condition, to what can count as law."

Marxism

Laws in a capitalist society that reflect the dominant class will collapse when private ownership is abolished. Workers will see labour as creative and will abolish competition and 'with it the state and the law'. As people are freedom from subordination tot he division of labour, there will be no dominant attitudes to fight against. Crime will become redundant with the disappearance of the factors which foster it, e.g. poverty, poor health and lack of education. However, economic planning requires experts, even for cooperative, harmonious exchange shops. This would create a managerial elite. The power of a planned economy will inevitably stay at the the top; this contradicts the claim that under communism people will have the resources to meet their needs.

Liberalism HN

Liberals emphasise autonomy and freedom of choice, and advocate a society that fosters debate and independence. Humans are fallible, so should be able to conduct 'experiments of living' to understand what is right for them. Therefore, liberals have a positive view of human nature. Mill argues that humans should be allowed to progress and make judgements themselves. Mill: Society has no right to judge what is wrong, but the state has the duty not to encourage 'bad' activities. E.g. recreational drugs shouldn't be promoted by the sate, but should be allowed in private. - "All restraint is evil".

Liberalism Against

Liberals outline fundamental values to be honoured by the state, e.g. freedom, but equally it can be suggested there are fundamental evils that need addressing. Conservatives say liberals don't value social cohesion - they believe that in order to avoid strife in community there must be a moral consensus propagated by the family, state and church. There needs to be certain, common rules in order to dispense justice, undermining the pluralist conception of morality. The state as an umpire is vulnerable to responding to the most powerful group. Mill argues that this justifies minimal government.

Classic Liberalism

Locke and Mill emphasise the importance of NF. Locke: Humans are God's creations acting as they choose; government is based on consent; interference is minimum but necessary to protect freedoms. Unnecessary invasion of a person if tyrannical - government is therefore a protection agency or referee. Mill urges private organisations to undertake as many roles as possible to avoid tyranny. He claims it's disadvantageous to attract 'high talent' into government, as this creates a desire for power. The aim of liberal PF is to enhance liberty.

Socialism and Needs

Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Under capitalism, the owner manipulates the market and exploits the worker for profit - the worker doesn't get the full value of the product, or his true desert. Marx cites deserts as "The narrow horizon of the bourgeois". However, impartiality dictates that we must satisfy basic needs - this values everyone's contribution and is a matter of simple humanity. For equality of opportunity, natural disadvantages must be compensated for, so we all start at the line before the race. Minimum level of resources are distributed to everyones so that they can function - guaranteed minimum wage, essential health care, sufficient education, social housing. These enable the needy to contribute to the nation state, be productive and realise their potential. However, tension arises between 'being productive' and being valued by all. Socialist redistribution generates pressure to conform to values of the common good. Emphasis on positive freedom and just laws coerce the citizens to be free. Rawls' 'primary goods' enable people to 'pursue their aims in life'. Life, liberty, income, opportunities, and self-respect. Some people have more extensive needs than others - equal satisfaction may not satisfy them. Some geographical areas need more resources than others, e.g. extremely cold areas or areas prone to drought or natural disasters. Communism seeks to root out the causes of inequality - justice is trying to reconcile the conflicting interests of individuals. With common ownership comes identity of interest and others are regarded as supporting comrades in a shared vision.

NF Advocates

Mill: "Freedom is doing what one desires" Aristotle: "Live as you like" Locke justifies minimal laws only if they protect negative freedom. Freedom requires opportunities and choices. E.g. if a cyclist is riding a bike down a hill, unaware of the absence of his brakes, he's exercising negative freedom, but lacks the choice to change course and prevent harming himself. Berlin defines freedom as 'the absence of obstacles to possible choices and activities'.

Socialism

More concerned with equality and justice, especially in economics. Laissez-faire economics results in poverty and limited opportunities. As HN is a product of economic circumstances, institutions can be structured to promote cooperation and freedom for all. Comprehensive education illustrates the role of PF in a socialist system. Freedom is linked to all round development and all round political freedoms. Positive liberty aims to equalise power. However, central planning requires experts to plan economic activity.

Liberty

Negative freedom can be self-defeating and undisciplined. Positive freedom leads to self-improvement, e.g. education and musical aptitude. In "On Liberty" Mill interprets history as a struggle for freedom, arguing the most 'conspicuous' aspect of history is the struggle between liberty and authority, after which requires the consent for rules, before the evolution of democracy, effectively - self governance. Mill's idea develops as freedom from tyrannous laws into freedom to enable people to be free and realise their aspirations. Concepts of freedom have divided ideologies.

Rights Evaluation

Nozick's argument rests on negative freedom. However, it's possible to have positive rights and duties. If Wilt is taxed, he ultiamtely increases the quality of his freedom and the amount of options he has to spend his money. We can query what 'faily acquired' means. History shows a lot of wealth acquired through robbery and imperialism. Fairness and desert are given meaning through shared values in a community. Desert is open to many interpretations: 1) I worked for it, 2) I was given it in sacred trust, 3) I really appreciate it, 4) I bought it...

Liberal State

Originates from a social contract (L) - Rational individuals put government into place. Universal rights (L) and necessary freedoms (M) override any government legislation. Individuals enjoy maximum negative freedom as long as it doesn't harm others. Human beings are capable of living self-chosen flourishing lives based on the ability to choose their own lifestyles. Different conceptions of the good life must be valued as there are no definite answers to moral questions. Society consists of autonomous individuals -atomistic view of society. The government should umpire disputes between individuals. Mill declares the role of the state is to defend, maintain law and order, and protect interests/rights.

Natural and Positive RIghts

Paine argues there are supra-legal 'natural rights' derived from natural law. Burke argues that rights are positive rights derived from law and the sovereign power. Utilitarians deny natural rights, but argue for moral rights to guide legislation.

Law & Liberty

Substantive concept of law - the law should promote and enforce moral and religious standards. Relationship depends on moral values. Liberal values traditionally derive froma theory of natural rights (Locke) or utilitarian arguments (Mill). Some religions advocate strict regulation of behaviour to ground positive freedoms.

Human Rights Evaluation

The most obvious advantage is universal protection - universal rights provide a regulator and framework for international behaviour. However, there may not be such rights, and are such rights acceptable? Interpretation of what's natural and rational is controversial; there must be a distinction between natural laws and scientific laws - i.e. the difference between descriptions and prescriptions. This leads to the fact/value gap - what is natural isn't logically right. The fact that humans desire happiness doesn't logically imply that happiness is desirable. Basing human rights on human nature can be partial and selective - or they may be no human essence.

Social Contract C

The notion of a social contract presupposes that people in a state of nature have the moral understanding to enter a contract. Moral obligations are logically prior to a binding contract. The contract doesn't necessarily deliver moral values. Rawls: To prevent people making choices reflecting natural advantages, he insists people must be put behind the veil of ignorance - or the original position. However, equality isn't an outcome, but a precondition to make people impartial and sympathetic. If circumstances change - as they can - we may not consent to the contract.

CS Against

The origin of something can be independent of its desirability. Mill: Attacks customs, saying the wisdom of elders may be obsolete and inappropriate for modern generations. In regards to the human body analogy; a body without a foot is also severely limited. Conservatism over-values social cohesion and order at the expense of competing conceptions of the truth. Propaganda and convenient 'myths' may sustain the state, but they belittle and demean the people. Extreme conservatism could politicise all activity to achieve the common good. Plato banned artists in the Republic, and similarly, right-wing regimes often control the media. The term 'common good' is too vague. The public interest may be just the interests of a small percentage of people. Marx argued that the only 'common good' is the one that benefits the majority.

NF Evaluation

The provision of alternative options requires intervention, assistance and guidance. The cyclist has a choice if an escape lane is provided, but an escape lane requires a creator and maintenance. A more paternalistic account of freedom is necessary to solve problems of poverty and ignorance for example, which restrict access to satisfying more liberating desires. Negative freedom ignores the fact I should be able to acquire values and pursue different goals. A lack of restrain from one party may impact another and be destructive: "Freedom of the pike means death to the minnows" - Berlin. Mill uses the harm principle to reconcile the disadvantages of negative freedom. Hobbes resolves it with the Leviathan ruler, who limits individual freedom. Extreme NL could leave us in fear of being dominated, harmed and threatened. It could also leave to severe inequality economically.

The State

The relationship between the individual and the state. A body that has the right to make laws and support their use of power with punishment. A state may be called a 'failed state' if it is legitimate, but unable to enforce the law and combat and uprising. The state's attitude to interference, justice, the legal system, and duties of the state, for example, providing a public healthcare system.

Marxist State Implications

The social contract and liberal rights are an illusion of the bourgeoisie who seek to protect their status and property rights. In practise, the poor cannot use their rights. Under communism, people will own their own industries and achieve harmony in interests, making a contract unnecessary. Marx argued that rational, autonomous individuals couldn't exist outside of society. We can only conceive of ourselves as free or different in the context of social interaction. Our socio-economic environment shapes our nature and consciousness. Human beings have a 'species essence' - we are creative and adapt to accommodate our needs. When workers are forced to carry out repetitive, tedious tasks, we ruin our creative essence and lose control of our work. Marx prescribes scientific socialism - he argues that the demise of capitalism is an inevitable next stage in the development of society. However, moral aspirations have no power to change the social system, as all change is generated by economic conditions. Marx implies a common theme of justice in his work. When he claims that the worker doesn't receive the full value of his labour, this is a desert-based theory of justice.

Origins of the State

There's a demand for an explanation of political obligation and the sovereignty of the state. I may agree that the act of torturing children is morally wrong, but the enforcement of the law and the penal system require further justification. State's adapt and evolve. Justifications ultimately rest on whether they present a credible case for social control.

Desert or Merit?

There's a potential clash with desert and merit. Desert assess effort and quality of work - backward looking. Merit, entails meeting criteria and is therefore forward looking. E.g. someone may work hard to deserve success, but not reach sufficient competency to merit it. However, it can be argued that justice should be about merit and rigorous competition; this provides a problem for liberals as it implies a set of fixed values and doesn't value pluralism. Basing justice on merit raises these tensions: 1) Inequality will develop between the meritorious and the failures - even though some 'failures' will be considered deserving. 2) Power is given to those who decide criteria of merit - success is therefore less open-ended. 3) Demand for positive discrimination of any group that consistently under-acheives.

Locke Criticisms

To assign value or speciality to a species is questionable and is mocked by SartreL "Only a dog or horse would be in a position to pronounce a general judgement upon man.: If everything is God's workmanship, we can never destroy anything, even deadly viruses. Reason is only the faculty of calculating - "The slave of the passions" - it cannot discern moral absolutes. Locke's account is a recommendation for equal moral status - people aren't born equally factually. It can be argued that rights aren't pre-social or posses, they are a product of society.

Ideologies

Underpinned by different conceptions of human nature - they appeal to essential characteristics of humanity. Philosophers advocate the moral basis on which the interests of all human beings should have equal consideration. Different conceptions of human nature take into acount recognisable human traits.

Liberalism For

We respect people siply because they're fellow human beings and its part of our humanity. There are rights all human beings have a state cannot take away - e.g. the right to life. Moral standards are a precondition of a civilised society. Humans are emotional; institutions are not. Therefore, human beings shouldn't be subordinate to institutions. The government is an adaptable servant of the people.

Justice

We seem to develop a sense of justice from an early age. There are different approaches to justice: Mill: "To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself constitute the ideal perfect of utilitarian morality." Kant: Tread people as 'ends' and 'not means'. Hare: Justice involves becoming and ideal sympathiser; putting ourselves in other people's shoes. Rawls: The principles of justice may be thought of as arising once the constraints of morality are imposed upon rational and mutually self-interested people. Nozick: "Past actions of people...can create different entitlements or different deserts to things". Substantive justice tackles the ethical base of a social system, e.g. its policies, principles, and laws. How should we treat people as the same; distinguish between needs and deserts, and relate opinion to our belief in human rights or fundamental values?

Marx

What appears natural is the order imposed by the ruling class. Appearing the what is 'natural' is therefore risky, as it isn't right or isn't natural at all.