Political Philosophy: Schmitt vs. Rawls

Introduction

• Carl Schmitt and John Rawls, prominent 20th-century political philosophers, offered contrasting perspectives on the nature of the political, the role of law, and the principles of justice. Their disagreements stemmed from fundamentally different conceptions of the political realm and the relationship between the state and the individual.

Schmitt's View of the Political

• Schmitt argued that the political is fundamentally distinct from the economic, social, and other realms of human action.
• The essence of the political lies in the distinction between friend and enemy. This distinction is not necessarily a product of hatred, but a recognition of an existential difference that requires a decisive confrontation.
• This understanding emphasizes the importance of power and the contingency of political arrangements in contrast to more universalist or rationalist approaches.
• Schmitt believed that the legal order is always ultimately grounded in a pre-legal (political) decision about who is included and excluded from the community.

Rawls' View of Justice

• Rawls, on the other hand, focused on achieving a just society through principles of justice deduced from a hypothetical "original position" behind a "veil of ignorance."
• This framework proposes that individuals, unaware of their particular circumstances (social class, wealth, talents), would agree on universal principles of justice.
• Rawls argued for principles of fairness that aim to maximize the liberties available to all members of the society under a "veil of ignorance."
• He prioritized certain rights and liberties above all else, emphasizing the importance of the rule of law.

Divergence on the Nature of the Political

• Schmitt saw the political as an irreducible and fundamental aspect of human existence, often requiring decisive action and potentially conflict.
• Rawls, in contrast, often sought to minimize and mitigate conflict by constructing a framework built upon principles of fairness, tolerance, and compromise.

Divergence on the Role of Law

• Schmitt viewed law as derivative of the political, an instrument of political will, constantly dependent on pre-legal distinctions and decisions.
• Rawls saw law as playing a central role in establishing and upholding a just society based on agreed-upon principles, potentially with the strength to limit or adjudicate political conflict through impartial application.

Divergence on the Concept of the State

• Schmitt saw the state's role as actively maintaining unity and order, potentially through strong leadership and confrontation with enemies of the state. This contrasts with Rawls' view which saw the state as a neutral arbiter striving to ensure broad equality and freedom to all citizens.

Divergence on the Idea of Neutrality

• Schmitt rejected the notion of a neutral or impartial position in politics, arguing that choosing a position (i.e. identifying friends and enemies) is inherent to the political.
• Rawls emphasized the importance of constructing a just society from a neutral standpoint, regardless of individual preferences. This neutrality is a key element of his approach to justice, enabling the creation of an overarching social contract.

Divergence on the Use of Force

• Schmitt viewed the use of force as potentially necessary and legitimate in the political sphere, specifically as a measure to maintain order and combat enemies. In contrast, Rawls tended to favor the rule of law and minimize the use of force, except in defense of the essential rights prescribed by the laws of a just society.

Role of Morality

• Schmitt felt that the political realm often transcended traditional conceptions of morality, and that a focus on ethical values could obscure essential political realities.
• Rawls constructed his theory of justice on explicit moral principles (derived from the "original position" thought experiment), and sought to integrate moral considerations into political life through the principles of justice.

Conclusion

• Schmitt and Rawls presented fundamentally different visions of the political world. Schmitt emphasized the decisive nature of political action and the unavoidable presence of conflict, whereas Rawls focused on creating a just and harmonious society through rational principles. Their contrasting perspectives highlight different understandings of the role of the state, law, and morality in structuring a peaceful and stable political order.

Explore the contrasting views of Carl Schmitt and John Rawls on political philosophy, law, and justice. This quiz delves into Schmitt's perspective on the political realm, focusing on the friend-enemy distinction, and how it shapes legal orders. Compare and contrast these two influential thinkers to deepen your understanding of modern political thought.