Pols Ch.4.docx

Pols Ch.4 Constraints on Freedom The concept of freedom, often used interchangeably with liberty, is challenging to define, particularly in the realm of politics. While commonly emphasized in the United States, the terms are less frequently used in the Canadian political system. Like democracy, free...

Pols Ch.4 Constraints on Freedom The concept of freedom, often used interchangeably with liberty, is challenging to define, particularly in the realm of politics. While commonly emphasized in the United States, the terms are less frequently used in the Canadian political system. Like democracy, freedom is considered a desirable goal for governments, but in practice, limitations on freedom may be justified to safeguard or pursue other valued objectives. Freedom is often seen as the absence of constraints, but disagreement among political theorists arises regarding what constitutes a constraint. An example is the case of Doğu Perinçek, chairperson of the Turkish Workers' Party, who, in 2005, faced legal consequences in Switzerland for denying the 1915 Armenian genocide. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights overturned his conviction, citing a violation of free speech rights. This decision sparked an appeal by Armenia, with Turkey supporting Perinçek, leading to his release in January 2015. The case involving Doğu Perinçek raises intriguing questions beyond its international aspects and Amal Clooney's representation of Armenia. It prompts reflection on whether governments should possess the authority to restrict free speech, if supranational bodies such as the ECHR can rightfully overturn state legal decisions, and whether third-party states like Armenia and Turkey have the right to intervene. Given Perinçek's Turkish citizenship and Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide, the case prompts consideration of whether he can be criminally convicted for echoing his own country's official stance. These inquiries delve into the complexities surrounding the concept of freedom and the role of laws in both protecting and limiting it. Nondemocratic Government The correlation between freedom and democracy is not absolute. In a nondemocratic society, the extent of freedom restriction is variable. It is conceivable to envision a benevolent dictatorship that allows significant freedom for its citizens. On the flip side, a democratic system might impose limitations on freedom, for instance, to curb the dissemination of hate speech. Therefore, the presence or absence of democracy does not necessarily dictate the level of freedom in a society. As Berlin (1969, p. 130) points out, “The answer to the question ‘Who governs me?’ is logically distinct from the question ‘How far does government interfere with me?’” It is possible for a government or authority to be clearly identified (answering the "Who governs me?" question) while the extent of its interference with individual lives may vary significantly (addressing the "How far does government interfere with me?" question). Physical Coercion A clear example of a constraint on individual freedom is when others physically hinder one from pursuing their desires, with extreme cases being imprisonment and slavery. Unjust or discriminatory laws can also be seen as constraints, as the potential penalties for breaking such laws, like lengthy prison sentences or even the death penalty, are so severe that they are comparable to physical restrictions. This underscores how legal consequences can significantly limit individual freedom. Systemic Racism Systemic racism is a significant issue in Western countries, particularly affecting Indigenous peoples, Black individuals, and other racialized groups. This problem is characterized by discriminatory norms, institutions, and structures that hinder equal access to justice and freedom. In the United States and Canada, anti-Black racism has been emphasized, with statistics revealing a disproportionate number of Black individuals killed by police. The data indicates that Black people are three times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts, and a high percentage of those involved in these killings are not charged with any crime. In Canada, particularly in Ontario, similar disparities exist, with Black people being significantly more likely to be killed by police and subjected to the use of force compared to white people. The concept of anti-Black racism encompasses both overt and subtle forms of discrimination, hindering African Americans from full societal participation and impeding efforts to bring about fundamental societal change for equity and inclusivity. The call to action is for individuals to embrace anti-racism, as neutrality in the face of systemic racism is deemed insufficient for achieving a just and equal society. CASE STUDY BOX 4.1 Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter (BLM) originated in 2013 in the United States following the acquittal of Trayvon Martin's murderer. By 2020, it had expanded to 16 chapters in North America, including branches in Canada and the United Kingdom. BLM was established to protest the lack of legal consequences for police forces and vigilante groups involved in killing Black individuals. The movement has a global scope, aiming to eliminate white supremacy and empower local communities to intervene in violence against Black communities by the state and vigilantes. In Canada, BLM chapters, notably in Toronto and Calgary, align with Indigenous struggles for self-determination, advocating for the decolonization of Turtle Island and Nunavut Nunangat. They emphasize the interconnectedness of Black and Indigenous liberation on Turtle Island. The killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville in 2020 sparked protests involving 15 to 26 million people, marking the largest in US history, according to Black Lives Matter (2020). A significant demand of the movement is the defunding of police, with the intention of reallocating resources from law enforcement to social welfare programs to support vulnerable populations often targeted by police due to racism, poverty, or mental illness. Some cities contemplated disbanding their police departments. Other key policies advocated by the movement include protection for trans individuals, who are frequent targets of violence, and the promotion of voting protections for Black people historically excluded from voting at the state level. In 2020, federal legislation was introduced to safeguard voters against exclusionary procedures like voter identification laws, restrictions on early voting, and the manipulation of electoral boundaries (Illing, 2019; McFadden, 2020). Physical Incapacity The idea of physical incapacity as a constraint on freedom is considered, suggesting that individuals are unfree when physical impairments hinder them from doing what they desire. Examples include conditions that deprive individuals of abilities like walking, seeing, speaking, or hearing, as well as conditions affecting all humans, like the inability to fly. While some constraints may be beyond human agency and need acceptance, the argument for using the language of freedom becomes compelling when a disability could be altered or accommodated, and the only barrier is a lack of resources for corrective measures such as surgery or a powered wheelchair. Rationality Some political theorists argue that freedom can be justifiably limited based on rationality. Supervision and direction for children or adults with senile dementia are not seen as constraints on freedom in the same way as for healthy adults. Restrictions on the freedom of children or those with dementia are deemed justified for goals such as ensuring safety. However, the notion that only rational behavior is free raises challenges, as defining rational behavior is complex and subject to change. An example is the debate sparked by the Green Party's 2019 promise to lower the voting age to 16 in Canada, prompting discussions on whether individuals of that age, old enough to drive, should have the right to determine their government. This raises questions of fairness and equality, exploring whether democratic freedoms should be extended to those on whom the state imposes obligations. Psychology Psychological influences on behavior constitute another set of constraints worth considering. Like physical coercion, individuals can be psychologically constrained, driven to behave in certain ways by external influences that impact their thoughts. Commercial advertising serves as a powerful example, creating desires that may not naturally exist, such as the demand for a specific brand of smartphone or tablet. Governments, recognizing the risks of addictive and life-threatening behaviors like smoking, have banned tobacco advertising and implemented warning labels with photos of smoking-related damage. Both tobacco advertising and governmental counter-advertising campaigns can be viewed as efforts by elites to shape the way the masses think, reflecting concepts like Steven Lukes's "third dimension" of power and Antonio Gramsci's work on hegemony. Economic Impediments The concept of freedom, defined as the absence of externally imposed physical coercion, suggests that individuals are most free when the state and society refrain from interference. However, some political thinkers argue that the state can enhance freedom by intervening in individuals' lives. As highlighted by Mary Wollstonecraft and other theorists, a person cannot fully develop as a human being without necessities like food and shelter. State intervention to ensure a minimum standard of living can increase individuals' freedom to pursue meaningful lives. This idea underpins the modern welfare state in various countries, including Canada. It's crucial to recognize that impediments to freedom are often interconnected, with economic and other obstacles linked to systemic racism, resulting in certain groups (such as African Americans or Indigenous peoples) being systematically deprived of the same benefits that others, particularly white individuals, more easily access. The Welfare State The welfare state is a political model where a government or a network of governments provides a basic level of social and economic protection for all residents within its jurisdiction. This typically involves government-funded services like education, healthcare, unemployment insurance, social assistance for food and housing, pensions, and more. These services are viewed within a positive rights framework. Additionally, welfare states may encompass government-owned corporations that operate in the public interest, even if they are not inherently commercially profitable, such as airlines, railways, resource extraction companies, and telecommunication infrastructure. The welfare state, beyond its goal of alleviating poverty and providing support for the poor, sick, and homeless, is also seen as a reinforcement of democracy. A key aspect is the idea that all citizens should have a minimum standard of living, enabling their active participation in democracy. Political participation is deemed challenging for those with fewer resources, such as income, education, or social networks. According to Shore, individuals lacking socioeconomic, cultural, and cognitive capital are at a higher risk of experiencing disadvantages across various citizenship spheres. Moreover, a country's commitment to welfare can influence the perceived legitimacy and accountability of its government, as the distribution of societal goods plays a fundamental role in democratic governance. The appropriate level of government-funded welfare is a constant subject of debate. A strong welfare state, while providing support, may be criticized for fostering a paternalistic government and imposing high taxes. On the other hand, a weak welfare state may result in widespread poverty, health issues, increased racial inequality, and a larger wealth gap. Critics argue that an extensive welfare state can lead to institutionalized helplessness and an unhealthy reliance on social programs, potentially necessitating higher taxes, limiting individual financial flexibility, and increasing government debt. Canada has maintained a robust welfare state, drawing inspiration from German and British models developed in the early 20th century. This system evolved into a network of robust provincial and national institutions, with significant welfare reforms in the 1960s, including the federal Medical Care Act of 1966, influenced by a model from Saskatchewan. Social welfare programs can play a significant role in nation-building efforts. In 1949, the Canadian federal government utilized the promise of social programs to encourage Newfoundland, a former British colony, to join as a province. Ornstein and Stevenson note that by immediately granting social rights and demonstrating equality with other provinces, the Canadian welfare state played a crucial role in shaping a unified Canadian identity. This approach, though not uniquely Canadian, shares similarities with German Chancellor Bismarck's strategy in the 1880s, where he introduced social insurance to foster loyalty to central state institutions and unite diverse ethnic and other groups. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, political analysts anticipate a shift from traditional left-right politics towards a heightened appreciation for and dependence on an expanded welfare state that can effectively respond to crises. Edwards (2020) suggests that centrist governments, like in New Zealand, may use the pandemic as an opportunity to implement significant changes, including progressive income taxes, wealth taxes, universal basic income, a substantial state housing program, and a revamp of the public health system. These changes are anticipated to be enduring, leading to a departure from traditional right-wing economic approaches. The pandemic has emphasized the need for substantial state intervention, challenging the idea of a small state as the solution. This perspective suggests that a robust state that intervenes to ensure accessible healthcare for all is essential, as evidenced by the varying success of countries with unequal healthcare access. Simultaneously, there may be increased distrust of foreign entities and greater challenges for international mobility across borders. Negative and Positive Freedom The theoretical distinction between negative and positive freedom dates to the ancient Greeks (Gray, 1991, p. 7) but was also heavily influenced by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Locke argued in favour of negative rights—that is, rights to be free from government interference, particularly in economic matters. Rousseau, by contrast, argued that the state had an obligation to provide its citizens with a decent standard of living (Forsythe, 2009, p. 91). In modern times, the distinction between negative and positive rights is often attributed to political theorist Isaiah Berlin. He defined negative liberty as "freedom from" interference, where individuals are left to do or be what they can without external interference. Positive liberty, on the other hand, involves "freedom to" do or be something, focusing on the source of control or interference that shapes individuals' actions. Berlin's distinction was influential in the 1960s, but later critiques, such as by Tim Gray, argued that there are multiple versions of freedom beyond the two identified by Berlin. Overall, the concept of "positive liberty" is best described as the freedom "to do" something. It refers to having the power and resources to act to fulfill one's own potential. This contrasts with "negative liberty", which is the freedom "from" external restraint on one's actions. The historical approaches to rights in the United States and the Soviet Union provide another perspective on the distinction between negative and positive freedoms. In the United States, the emphasis was on negative freedoms, as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which prioritized individual autonomy and the right to be free from state interference. Economic, social, and cultural rights were often viewed with skepticism by the founders, who saw them as potential threats to the capitalist system. In contrast, communist countries, like the Soviet Union, championed positive rights such as the right to employment, education, healthcare, and state-funded childcare, asserting that the state had a responsibility to care for its citizens. In international law, the protection of negative and positive rights is addressed through two separate covenants, both established by the United Nations in 1966: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR). These rights can be viewed as complementary, suggesting that states should strive to balance the promotion of societal equality to a limited extent while still safeguarding individual liberty. An example of this balance is seen in the approach of Pierre Trudeau, who advocated for state-run health care while simultaneously removing provisions in the Criminal Code restricting same-sex acts between consenting adults. Trudeau demonstrated the idea that the state could play a role in healthcare without intruding into the private lives of its citizens. Canada seeks to find a middle ground between the extensive freedom of speech in the United States and the protection of vulnerable groups from potential harm caused by the spread of hatred and incitement to violence. The Canadian Criminal Code includes provisions that prohibit communicating statements in public places that incite hatred against identifiable groups if such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace (Section 319: 1). Additionally, it prohibits the willful promotion of hatred against any identifiable group in statements made outside of private conversations (Section 319: 2). These legal measures aim to uphold the democratic right to be heard while simultaneously safeguarding against the targeting of specific groups by extremist ideologies (Canadian Criminal Code, 2020). Is Freedom Special? Justifying freedom and defining it are distinct concepts, although they are interconnected, as the assessment of the value of freedom is influenced by its understanding. While some argue that freedom can be restricted to enhance equality, if the definition of freedom includes the necessity of state intervention to equalize resources, the two concepts are not necessarily in opposition. Various justifications for freedom exist, with some political theorists advocating a presumption in favor of freedom, implying that those seeking to limit it must present a compelling case (Benn, 1971). The question of why freedom should be highly valued is also raised in this context. One argument supporting freedom is based on the notion that it is a fundamental human right (Hart, 1967). However, this line of reasoning relies on a prior argument in favor of rights in general, and specifically, the right to freedom. Ronald Dworkin (1978) contends that certain freedoms, which he refers to as "strong" liberties, are essential to ensure that individuals are treated with equal concern and respect, and these liberties should be inviolable. Nevertheless, Dworkin's argument assumes that equality is inherently valuable, a point that has faced criticism. Critics, such as Gray (1991), argue that determining which liberties qualify as "strong" and uphold the right to equal concern and respect is subjective and can be influenced by personal opinions. This becomes particularly problematic when considering the desirability of cultural pluralism, where competing norms of behavior are considered acceptable (see Box 4.2). KEY CONCEPT BOX 4.2 Freedom and Cultural Pluralism Cultural pluralism involves the coexistence of different cultures with distinct norms within a single society. Two examples illustrate the challenges associated with cultural pluralism: 1. In 2018, Quebec introduced Bill 21, restricting public-sector employees from wearing religious symbols in public places, including the hijab, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, and Christian crosses. The legislation aimed to promote secularism, but it faced criticism for potentially leading to discrimination against religious minorities, particularly Muslims. Despite criticism outside the province, many in Quebec supported the law (Curtis and Riga, 2019; Lord, 2020). 2. Female genital mutilation (FGM), practiced in various regions for cultural and religious reasons, affects over 200 million women. FGM can cause severe physical and psychological harm. While prohibited in Canada under the Criminal Code, it is still practiced in parts of West and South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, and there have been instances reported in Britain (WHO, 2019; Weir, 2000). These examples prompt a debate about the limits of freedom in the context of cultural pluralism. Should cultural diversity be restricted to safeguard freedom, or should it be allowed even if certain practices within cultures cause harm and deny freedom to specific groups? Mill, Utilitarianism, and Freedom John Stuart Mill, in his essay "On Liberty" published in 1859, presents a well-known defense of freedom. Mill asserts that freedom contributes to the maximum amount of happiness. He distinguishes between different types of pleasure, emphasizing the value of "higher pleasures" associated with cerebral activities such as literature, music, and art, in contrast to physical pleasures. According to Mill, both individuals and the state should prioritize the pursuit of these higher pleasures for the overall well-being and happiness of society (Mill, 2007). In advocating for maximum freedom of thought and discussion, John Stuart Mill argues that even beliefs considered false, or offensive should not be censored. He contends that open debate and challenge are essential, as true beliefs gain support when tested against objections, and false beliefs are more likely to be exposed through public discourse. Mill asserts that a society benefits from a wide range of opinions and lifestyles being explored, leading to increased strength and social progress. While this perspective is reflected in the free speech provisions of the U.S. Constitution, it holds less influence in Canada, where the Criminal Code aims to balance the right to speech with the right to be protected from hatred and violence. In the same essay, John Stuart Mill introduces the harm principle, arguing that freedom of action should only be restricted if the actions harm others, referred to as "other-regarding actions." Self-regarding actions, affecting only oneself, should not be interfered with by public opinion or the state. According to Mill, individuals can be warned about the potential dangers of their choices, but physical restraint is only justified when the action poses harm to someone else. Actions that might be offensive to others but don't cause physical or financial harm are not considered other-regarding and should not be subject to interference. Freedom, Happiness, and Paternalism Mill’s thoughts on liberty have been very influential in determining the nature of state intervention in modern liberal societies. Laws legalizing homosexuality between consenting adults, for instance, owe much to Mill’s distinction between self- and other-regarding actions. Debates about John Stuart Mill often center on his arguments for freedom of action, particularly the distinction between self-and other-regarding actions. Critics argue that this distinction is unsustainable, contending that there are few, if any, actions that affect only the individual. Some challenge Mill's perspective that actions offending others but causing no physical harm should be considered self-regarding. British judge Lord Devlin countered Mill, asserting that private immorality doesn't exist, as private behavior can have public consequences. Devlin argued that societal cohesion relies on shared moral values and excessive moral pluralism could lead to catastrophic consequences for social stability (Devlin, 1965). John Stuart Mill's assumption that freedom of action contributes to happiness or well-being can be challenged, especially by utilitarians who seek to maximize overall happiness in society. The evaluation of behaviors that may offend others but don't cause direct physical or financial harm becomes crucial. Decisions regarding whether to allow such behavior to continue or to intervene must be carefully considered, as illustrated in the Case Study on smoking. In the age of the Internet, exercising freedom of expression can lead to unintended consequences, as seen in incidents such as the violent global protests in 2005 after a Danish magazine published cartoons mocking Prophet Muhammad and the subsequent attacks on the offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2011 and 2015, resulting in fatalities (Jolly, 2011; Chrisafis, 2015). CASE STUDY BOX 4.3 Smoking and Liberty In 2003, Prince Edward Island became the first Canadian province to ban smoking in public places, a policy subsequently adopted by all provinces and territories. The primary justification for this ban is the harm caused to non-smokers who are involuntarily exposed to the smoke produced by others. This rationale aligns with John Stuart Mill's perspective, as he would likely argue that smoking in private, where no one else is harmed, is legitimate, but smoking in public is not. Two criticisms of John Stuart Mill's harm principle suggest that the smoking ban might not be comprehensive enough. The first criticism questions the distinction between self-and other-regarding actions. It is argued that even private smoking has the potential to harm others. For instance, if an individual becomes ill due to smoking, it can impact family members financially and emotionally through potential death or illness. Additionally, the person's poor health can have broader financial consequences for the healthcare system that treats them and the social system that provides support if they are unable to work. The second criticism of John Stuart Mill's harm principle suggests that there are valid reasons for the state to intervene in preventing individuals from harming themselves. In the context of smoking, an individual's health and well-being may not necessarily be served by liberty, and restricting freedom could potentially enhance happiness. One could argue that the state should intervene, even banning smoking, to improve the health of those who choose to smoke and consequently increase overall levels of happiness. Additionally, the addictive nature of smoking is highlighted, making it extremely difficult for many smokers who want to quit to do so. Around the time when public smoking was being banned, e-cigarettes/vaping products were introduced in 2004. In 2018, federal legislation in Canada legalized e-cigarettes based on evidence suggesting they were less harmful than regular cigarettes. However, research also indicates that vaping is more harmful than not smoking and can increase the risk of a heart attack. E-cigarette advertising, particularly targeting youth with novel flavors, raised concerns. While e-cigarettes may aid smoking cessation, they could also pose new health risks and contribute to a new generation of smokers. The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation recommended subjecting e-cigarettes to the same laws as regular cigarettes and raising the age for cigarette consumption to 21. In 2019, the federal government and eight provinces enacted laws banning e-cigarettes from public places, restricting flavors, imposing advertising limitations, and setting the minimum age for purchase and use at 18 or 19 years, depending on the province (CBC News, 2019). In defense of Mill, racially motivated writing and speech could be prohibited under the harm principle as they are considered other regarding. This principle was applied in the 2019 prosecution of James Sears, editor in chief of Toronto-based publication Your Ward News, which promoted Holocaust denial, glorified Nazism, and propagated hatred against women and Jews. The prosecution aimed to send a strong message about the existence of hate laws in Canada and the consequences for violating them, according to Bernie Farber of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. In 2018, nearly 1800 hate incidents were reported to the police nationwide, though this likely underrepresents the actual occurrences, as studies indicate that only a minority of such incidents are reported (Breen, 2019). Mill and New Liberalism John Stuart Mill presented a liberal theory of freedom, advocating for limited state intervention and prioritizing personal autonomy. His ideas significantly influenced modern liberal theories of the state, emphasizing state neutrality and moral pluralism. Despite championing individual freedom, Mill was cognizant of the widespread poverty and squalor in 19th-century England. He acknowledged the socialist critique of liberalism that emerged in the latter half of the century, recognizing its challenges and value. Positioned at the cusp between classical liberalism and the emerging new liberalism emphasizing social reform, Mill played a pivotal role in shaping the trajectory of British politics. The Meanings of Justice Justice is a complex political concept that involves giving others what they are entitled to. This distinguishes it from charity, as justice implies an obligation rather than a moral choice. In contemporary society, justice revolves around the fair distribution of various resources such as wealth, income, and educational opportunities. The concept assumes scarcity, suggesting that if resources were abundant, there would be no need to debate their allocation. Theorists distinguish between procedural justice, which focuses on the fairness of the process leading to an outcome, and social justice, which concerns the fairness of the outcome itself. Modern theories of social or distributive justice suggest criteria for resource distribution, such as need, merit, or pure equality. All justice theories involve the principle of treating equals consistently, though they acknowledge that not all individuals are equal in every aspect. Differential treatment may be justified based on factors like effort, talent, or historical wrongs, requiring acknowledgment and compensation for past injustices, as seen in cases like the Indian Residential School system in Canada. A theory of justice based on need is closely associated with socialism, as in the slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Nevertheless, the existence of the welfare state indicates that modern liberal democracies also recognize that meeting needs is just (though most of them limit the needs they recognize to the most basic). A merit-based theory of justice supports the distribution of resources based on what individuals deserve, considering factors such as natural talent, hard work, and contributions to society. This perspective, known as meritocracy, deems it just to provide differential rewards according to merit. The theory emphasizes the societal benefits of using incentives to promote the development and utilization of talent. Additionally, it underscores the significance of equal opportunity, asserting that for rewards to be based on merit, there must be a level playing field, entailing equal access to education and welfare opportunities for all. Justice can be expanded by acknowledging historical marginalization resulting from racism and colonialism. The existing societal structures, encompassing political, economic, social, and legal institutions, may stem from one group imposing its system on another. A comprehensive understanding of justice may require looking beyond current state institutions and exploring new and potentially diverse forms of governance. This is particularly pertinent in the context of Indigenous peoples, who had their own laws and governance systems before European colonization. The right to self-determination, established in treaties, the Canadian Constitution, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), underscores the need to respect cultural specificity in interpretations of justice. It emphasizes that justice cannot be assumed to follow a universal, Western European model. Rawls’s Theory of Justice The meaning of justice becomes clearer if we look at a particular explanation. The best-known account is John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, published in 1971. Rawls’s account can be divided into two parts: the method he used to arrive at his principles of justice and then the principles themselves. Rawls, drawing from the social contract tradition, aims to establish principles of justice that everyone can agree upon through a consensual process. He addresses the challenge presented by competing theories of justice, which often rely on unresolved value judgments. The dilemma lies in choosing between theories that prioritize merit or need. This decision is likely influenced by individual values and the envisioned societal ideals, whether it leans towards emphasizing equality or achievement. Rawls constructs a hypothetical scenario, the original position, where individuals unanimously support specific principles of justice. In this thought experiment, participants are behind a "veil of ignorance," unaware of their future societal position regarding factors like wealth, race, gender, or abilities. Rawls assumes self-interest among individuals who desire optimal outcomes for themselves. Additionally, he posits that they seek "primary goods" like wealth, good health, and education in this hypothetical situation. In the second part of the theory, Rawls outlines the principles he thinks would emerge when the individuals in the original position had imagined the perfect society. There are two: 1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty 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 of opportunity (Rawls, 1971, p. 302). Rawls adds that principle 1 (the liberty principle) has priority over principle 2 and that 2(b) (the fair opportunity principle) has priority over 2(a) (the difference principle); thus, liberty cannot be sacrificed to achieve economic improvement. This rules out slavery, in which it is possible that individuals without liberty could still have a high degree of economic and social well-being. Critiques of Rawls Rawls's work has prompted extensive literature, with critics focusing on both his method and principles. Some question whether individuals in the original position would genuinely choose the justice principles Rawls describes. For instance, Jonathan Wolff challenges the assumption that individuals behind the veil of ignorance would adopt a risk-minimizing "maximin" strategy, ensuring the worst-case scenario is as good as possible. Critics argue for alternatives, suggesting a middle ground between extremes like a society with more inequality but still offering basic protection for the worst-off. This would improve the average societal position, even if life at the bottom is less optimal. Rawls's principles of justice face criticism from both the left and the right. From the left, Robert Wolff contends that Rawls's difference principle, despite appearing egalitarian, is not truly so. Wolff questions the automatic priority given to liberty and challenges the assumption that most people can afford the basics for survival. He argues that in parts of the world where this is not the case, sacrificing some liberty may be necessary to attain a basic standard of living. Robert Nozick, a prominent critic of Rawls from the right, espoused a libertarian perspective, advocating for a minimal state focused on protecting property rights. Nozick proposed a procedural theory of justice that prioritizes the way property is acquired over the outcome, contrary to Rawls's emphasis on meeting needs. According to Nozick's historical theory, past circumstances or actions can create differential entitlements to property, and if property is acquired fairly, the owner has a just entitlement to it. Nozick strongly opposed any form of property redistribution, including through taxation, deeming it unjust. According to Nozick, Rawls's end-state theory, which justifies inequality only if it benefits everyone, especially the worst-off, is invalid. Nozick finds Rawls's principles inconsistent, questioning how one can prioritize liberty while advocating significant resource redistribution. He argues that any effort to enforce a specific distribution pattern, such as meeting needs, would involve restrictions on liberty, making it unacceptable. In essence, Nozick challenges the idea of sacrificing liberty for the sake of redistributive outcomes. Nozick's entitlement theory, which asserts just ownership through fair original acquisition and non-harm to others, faces challenges. Critics argue that many properties were unfairly acquired, especially in cases like the taking of land from Indigenous peoples in North America without consent. The issue of determining compensation for historical injustices poses significant difficulties for Nozick's theory. The second proviso prevents acquisitions that harm the essential well-being of others, prohibiting actions like monopolizing water or food supplies. However, doubts arise about the justice of Nozick's theory, as it could lead to extreme inequalities, potentially risking starvation for the poorest members of society. Critics argue that redistributing resources can enhance liberty by expanding choices for the poor. The practical consequences and potential injustices of Nozick's theory are questioned, especially considering historical injustices and the well-being of vulnerable populations. Alternative Theories of Justice Rawls and Nozick, although different in many ways, both put forward theories of justice based on liberal ideas. Both also limited their focus to relationships between human beings within sovereign states. Other theories of justice are not limited in these ways. Cosmopolitan Theories of Justice The increasing interconnectedness of people and nations suggests the need for expanding the concept of justice beyond national borders. Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has been advocating for a global movement against climate change, urging governments worldwide to collaborate and take decisive action to address the environmental crisis. The current global emphasis on the threats of a climate emergency makes it inadequate to confine discussions of justice solely to the internal affairs of affluent Western nations. Recognizing the profound global inequalities and the argument that wealthy states in the Global North bear some responsibility for poverty in the South, political theorists have developed global theories of justice, as illustrated in the Case Study in Box 4.4. CASE STUDY BOX 4.4 Climate Change and Justice Cosmopolitan theories of justice advocate for a duty, both on individuals and states, to actively address global injustices or, at the very least, refrain from causing harm. In the context of climate change politics, cosmopolitan perspectives assert that affluent industrialized nations must reduce their current rates of burning fossil fuels, considering their responsibility for climate change. Moreover, these countries are urged to assist developing nations affected by climate change. Bangladesh, facing severe flooding issues and lacking resources to address them, serves as an example of a country in significant jeopardy from climate change despite contributing minimally to its causes. The cosmopolitan approach to justice is rooted in the principle that loyalty should extend to all human beings, not just those within one's country. The concept of human equality as members of a global citizenry has historical roots in political thought. The rising disparity between the Northern and Southern hemispheres, along with an increasing acknowledgment of this imbalance, has elevated global justice to a significant moral challenge, as highlighted by international relations theorist Andrew Linklater in 2008. The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated global inequality. There is a lack of consensus regarding moral obligations toward those outside our community. Peter Singer advocates for an unlimited obligation, suggesting that individuals in affluent regions, like the rich North, should assist those in impoverished areas, even if it significantly reduces Western living standards. Thomas Pogge takes a less extreme stance, endorsing the application of Rawls's principles on a global scale to enhance redistribution between wealthy and impoverished regions. Communitarianism and Justice Communitarianism serves as an alternative to cosmopolitan and liberal theories of justice. Unlike Rawls and Nozick, communitarians reject the notion that liberal theories can universally apply across all social settings, emphasizing the importance of culturally specific justice claims. They advocate for principles of justice that consider the unique historical and cultural features of a society, leading to varied principles from one society to another. According to communitarian thought, factors such as a community's history, language, religious beliefs, and values shape perceptions of justice and injustice, fairness, and unfairness. This perspective aligns well with Indigenous laws and forms of governance. The communitarian position offers an important critique of the cosmopolitan theory of justice. Communitarians see the cosmopolitan notion of global citizenship as naive, since our loyalties develop, and our identities are forged within our own communities (Walzer, 1994). They also see it as undesirable and illegitimate to impose our own liberal conceptions of justice on other cultures. Green Political Thought and Justice Green political thought challenges the idea that justice should only be considered for current living humans. One aspect of this debate involves questioning whether justice should extend to future generations, with many philosophers exploring this idea, as seen in the work of Barry (1999). However, the issue of intergenerational justice may conflict with intragenerational justice. The question arises: Is it justifiable to curtail economic development to preserve the environment for future generations, especially when many people are currently facing starvation? The response to this dilemma considers the correlation between those most likely to starve and those least likely to contribute to environmental pollution. Green political theorists and moral philosophers advocate for expanding the scope of justice beyond human beings. Some have sought to apply principles of justice to certain nonhuman animals, as illustrated by Garner (2005). The perspectives on justice also vary, with some theorists considering the entire natural world deserving of justice. Different positions exist, such as drawing the line after living things, as suggested by Taylor (1986), while others argue for the inclusion of inanimate phenomena. This broader view envisions the application of justice to ecosystems or biodiversity, as articulated by Fox (1984). Indigenous theorists and activists have been advocating for principles aligned with what Westerners would perceive as a green agenda, predating the green movement by centuries. During the formulation of the Declaration of Interdependence for the 1992 Earth Summit, environmental activist David Suzuki, drawing inspiration from First Nations, realized that framing environmental issues as an external matter was incorrect. Suzuki acknowledged the Indigenous perspective that there is no separate environment; instead, humans are inherently connected to the earth and formed from the four sacred elements of earth, air, fire, and water. Sylvia Saysewahum McAdam, a Nêhiyaw legal scholar and co-founder of Idle No More, emphasizes the significance of her people's laws in coexisting with nature. She points to ohcinêwin, a principle prohibiting the violation of laws against anything other than a human being. In this context, humans are seen as having responsibilities to maintain respectful and harmonious relationships with everything in their surroundings. Cruelty to animals and the environment, as well as a lack of respect for traditional hunting laws and human-animal relationships, are considered violations of ohcinêwin, resulting in suffering as retribution for actions against creation. McAdam underscores that animals are regarded as individuals with their own rights, and the relationship between the Nêhiyaw and animal-persons is governed by the same legal considerations that apply to human relationships. LIST OF KEY TERMS Agency-In social science literature, agency is used to refer both to the human action that makes something happen and to the capacity for such action. The idea of agency is often contrasted with the idea of impersonal causes (historical, economic, and so on) over which human actors have little control. Hence the frequent use of the combined term structure-agency in situations where it is not clear whether the primary causes are impersonal background factors or human actions. Cultural pluralism-The existence in a single society of different behavioural norms determined by culture. From a normative perspective, cultural pluralism may be either desirable or undesirable. Global Justice-The application of principles of justice at a global (as opposed to national) level. harm principle-The principle, associated with John Stuart Mill, that all actions should be allowed unless they harm others. intergenerational justice-Principles of justice relating to non-contemporaries, that is, between parents and children or those living now and those still to be born. intragenerational justice-Principles of justice relating to contemporaries, that is, people who are living at the same time. meritocratic theory of justice-A theory that advocates distributing resources to those who display some merit, such as innate ability or willingness to work hard, and therefore deserve to be rewarded. negative liberty-Liberty that can be increased by removing external obstacles, such as physical constraints or legal prohibitions. original position-A term used by John Rawls to denote a hypothetical situation in which individuals under a “veil of ignorance” as to their personal circumstances would decide which rules of justice should govern the society in which they will live. positive liberty-Liberty that can be increased either by state action or by removing internal obstacles such as immorality or irrationality. procedural justice-The fairness of the process by which an outcome is reached, regardless of what the outcome is. social contract-The idea that individuals in the state of nature (that is, society before any form of government has been established) have voluntarily agreed to accept certain limits on their freedom in return for the benefits that government will provide; a device used by several political thinkers to justify a particular form of state. social justice-The principle that goods ought to be distributed according to need, merit, or the principle of equality. Positive vs Negative Rights Positive rights are those that require action or resources to be provided by the state or other individuals. They are rights “to” something, such as the right to education, healthcare, or a minimum wage. These rights require some form of active fulfillment. Negative rights, on the other hand, are rights “from” something, such as freedom from torture or freedom of speech. They require others, including the government, to abstain from interfering with your actions. So, if you look at the options: freedom of religion, free speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom of the press, they are all negative rights because they require non-interference rather than active provision. The key difference lies in the type of obligation they impose - whether it’s an obligation to act (positive rights) or an obligation to refrain from acting (negative rights).