Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

nozick rawls kymlica foucalt2, Summaries of Political Philosophy

A brief summary of the political thought of Rawls, Nozick, Kymlica and Foucault

Typology: Summaries

2013/2014

Uploaded on 06/18/2014

Aky1991
Aky1991 🇮🇹

5

(3)

6 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Robert Nozick
His theory fro states is that they can legitimately be or become minimal. No actual existing state
matches his ideal of state. He sees the state as the guardian of individuals, self-ownership and
roghts of property. Nozick argues that there is a certain moral necessity to the way in which the
stages of the state ought to develop. Individuals have to act morally and pacifically.
The author states that always, in every state, like an invisible hand, one dominant protection
agency in each territorial area would emerge, in which most people would be included. The
dominant agency has the right to prohibit risky procedures against its clients, and this prohibition
establishes the “ultra-minimal state” in which one agency coercively prohibits all other agencies
from enforcing the rights of individuals. Nozick is arguing that power resides in a central body,
and this looks like a contradiction to his libertarianism.
Another important point in Nozick’s analysis is that the state can outlaw risky activities upon
compensation only if no one has the right to engage in “non-productive” activities or exchanges,
and that therefore they can legitimately be prohibited.
John Rawls
Rawls basic argument is that all social primary goods are to be distributed equally unless an
unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored. He is
influenced by John Locke, utilitarianists (JS Mill and Bentham) and Kant.
Rawls wanted to explore what a person’s “goods” were. Right is set down in social contract as
the same for everyone and can be summarized in his principles of justice: the first principle is
liberty, the second one concerns wealth.
An important statement is that there should be no differences except those that can be justified
on grounds of efficiency. Rawls gives a negative definition of “efficiency”. No state can be
called efficient if there is an alternative arrangement that improves the situation of some people
with no worsening of the situation of any of the other people. Rawls address the fact that there
will be situations where there will be a necessity for a priority of justice, and that the two
primary principles will be in conflict with each other. A solution to the conflict is the priority of
liberty.
Rawls maintains that rational people will unanimously adopt his principles of justice if their
reasoning is based on general considerations, without knowing anything about their own
personal situations. This procedure of reasoning without personal biases is called by Rawls “the
veil of ignorance”.
Civil disobedience is, by its nature, an act responding to injustices internal to a given society,
appealing to the public’s conception of justice. Civil disobedience can be justified if the
following three conditions are all met:
1. If the justice is substantial and clear;
2. If the normal appeals to the political majority have already been made in good faith and
have failed;
3. If there are not too many other minority groups with similarly valid claims.
1
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download nozick rawls kymlica foucalt2 and more Summaries Political Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!

Robert Nozick

His theory fro states is that they can legitimately be or become minimal. No actual existing state matches his ideal of state. He sees the state as the guardian of individuals, self-ownership and roghts of property. Nozick argues that there is a certain moral necessity to the way in which the stages of the state ought to develop. Individuals have to act morally and pacifically. The author states that always, in every state, like an invisible hand, one dominant protection agency in each territorial area would emerge, in which most people would be included. The dominant agency has the right to prohibit risky procedures against its clients, and this prohibition establishes the “ultra-minimal state” in which one agency coercively prohibits all other agencies from enforcing the rights of individuals. Nozick is arguing that power resides in a central body, and this looks like a contradiction to his libertarianism. Another important point in Nozick’s analysis is that the state can outlaw risky activities upon compensation only if no one has the right to engage in “non-productive” activities or exchanges, and that therefore they can legitimately be prohibited.

John Rawls

Rawls basic argument is that all social primary goods are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored. He is influenced by John Locke, utilitarianists (JS Mill and Bentham) and Kant. Rawls wanted to explore what a person’s “goods” were. Right is set down in social contract as the same for everyone and can be summarized in his principles of justice: the first principle is liberty, the second one concerns wealth. An important statement is that there should be no differences except those that can be justified on grounds of efficiency. Rawls gives a negative definition of “efficiency”. No state can be called efficient if there is an alternative arrangement that improves the situation of some people with no worsening of the situation of any of the other people. Rawls address the fact that there will be situations where there will be a necessity for a priority of justice, and that the two primary principles will be in conflict with each other. A solution to the conflict is the priority of liberty. Rawls maintains that rational people will unanimously adopt his principles of justice if their reasoning is based on general considerations, without knowing anything about their own personal situations. This procedure of reasoning without personal biases is called by Rawls “the veil of ignorance”. Civil disobedience is, by its nature, an act responding to injustices internal to a given society, appealing to the public’s conception of justice. Civil disobedience can be justified if the following three conditions are all met:

  1. If the justice is substantial and clear;
  2. If the normal appeals to the political majority have already been made in good faith and have failed;
  3. If there are not too many other minority groups with similarly valid claims.

Rawls seems to assume an inevitable progress and acceptance of rights, when no such

assumption can be made.

The biggest point of tension between Nozick and Rawls concerns distributive justice. Nozick argues that there is no central distribution processes or single person or group that may be entitled to control all the resources and has the authority to decide how these will be distributed. But for Rawls, the question would be whether or not the distribution resulting from these transactions is “just”. Really the authors are coming at the moral aspect of he question of distribution in different ways and with different methods.

Will Kymlicka

The key word of all his studies is “multiculturalism”. He recognizes that cultural diversity has become a central feature of contemporary society. Increasing cultural diversity has led to increasing tensions between various ethnic majority and minority groups. He always uses the example of Canada, where finally government policy and practical initiatives have changed in an attempt to deal with some of these demographic, social and political changes. But can the Canadian example be generalized? Kymlicka’s studies are focused on ethno-cultural groups, which are defined as ethnic groups, national minorities, nations and peoples. Kymlicka’s liberal point of view sets him in the tradition of liberalism, tradition that sees the individual as the basis of society, analyzed as autonomous and having free will to act. All rights adhere to the individual, and liberalism has often been criticized for being excessively individualistic. The author distinguishes between two types of ethno-cultural groups: first, national minorities in multi-nation states and, second, ethnic groups in polyethnic states. National minorities are groups that have in common some or all of a history, community, territory, language or culture. Kymlicka defines national minorities in terms of culture and argues that if these minorities wish to retain their cultures, they should be recognized as distinct. Kymlicka also talks about illegal cultures: these are cultures which limit the liberty of members and where respect for individual freedom of choice is limited or nonexistent. With respect to ethno-cultural minorities, Kymlicka is very optimistic in terms of creating a shared civic identity. Where he is more pessimistic is with respect to national minorities. As things are now in 2010, I think that multiculturalism is a big problem because integration is not reached yet in most countries and I think that politics should try to do more for this social problem, so I can definitely see why people saw Kymlicka point of view as too optimistic.

Michael Foucault

Foucault sees politics as a matter of truth and justice, even if his emphasis on the power- knowledge relationship represents a significant problem for any claim that his work is concerned with ethics, truth and justice. The author states that our destiny is to remain trapped in a