Anglo-American Political Philosophy Research Articles

The Anglo-American political philosophy in the 20th century

The revival of Anglo-American political philosophy began in the 1970s with the publication of A Theory of Justice by John Rawls and Wittgenstein and Justice by Hanna Pitkin. This revival was facilitated by the turbulent political processes occurring after the Second World War that required philosophical understanding, but the long-dominant utilitarian approach could not fully meet this task. Traditionally, the main issue in political philosophy has been the question of power, spe- cifically its political organization and legitimacy. Rawls demonstrated that the political organiza- tion of power is derived from how we understand ethical norms and what norms (rules) we follow in social interaction. Thus, the main question of political philosophy is not power but justice. He also demonstrated that political freedom is closely linked to equality. Rawls’s theory had a deci- sive influence on the political philosophy of the twentieth century, the development of which was largely based on criticism or reception of his ideas. Today, we are witnessing the beginning of a break with tradition, which was expressed by Rawls and suggested that the political is based on the possibility of consensus and ethical agree- ment. The current developments in political philosophy are closely connected with the rethink- ing of Rawls’s legacy, and we see this in the development of non-ideal political theories.

Decolonizing Anglo-American Political Philosophy: The Case of Migration Justice

AbstractInternational migration is increasing not only in absolute terms but also as a percentage of the global population. In 2019, international migrants made up 3.5 per cent of the global population, compared to 2.8 per cent in the year 2000. Over the past two decades, a philosophical literature has emerged to investigate what justice requires with respect to these vast migrant flows. My article criticizes much of this philosophical work. Building on the work of Charles Mills (2015), I argue that the terms in which many Anglo-American philosophers presently debate migration justice neglect and even obscure consideration of the ways in which current migration flows may be shaped by Euro-American colonialism and neo-colonialism. Such exclusions produce systematic biases in much of our philosophical literature. To develop less biased understandings of migration justice, I propose that Anglo-American philosophers should revise our methods and our conceptual frameworks to enable exploring the possible extent and ethical implications of colonial and neo-colonial influence. This is one part of the much larger task of decolonizing our political philosophy.

Being realistic and demanding the impossible

Characterising realism by contrasting it with moralism leaves open several questions to do with realism’s practical import. If political judgment is not to be derived — exclusively or at all — from pre-political moral commitments, what scope is there for genuinely normative political thinking? And even if there is some scope for political normativity, does realism’s reliance on interpretations of political practices condemn it to some form of status quo bias? In this paper I address those questions. My main aim is to assuage some worries about realism’s alleged conservative tendencies. I argue that there is an important sense in which realists can support radical and even unachievable political change — one can be realistic and demand the impossible, as the soixante- huitard slogan goes. To see how that may be the case one needs to characterise realism by contrasting it with both non-ideal theory and utopianism. In a nutshell, realism differs from non- ideal theory because it need not be concerned with feasibility constraints, and it differs from utopianism because it eschews detailed blueprints of the perfect polity.

Ricoeur and Anglo-American Political Philosophy

It is a common conviction that Ricoeur’s main contribution to Anglo-American political philosophy is to be found in the dialogue he tried to establish between liberalism and communitarianism. I argue that the depth of Ricoeur’s political philosophy is better served by situating it not only with regard to liberalism and communitarianism, but especially with regard to republicanism. This article shows how Ricoeur’s political philosophy—with its focus on the so-called “political paradox”—contains the main components of contemporary republicanism, with its stress on active citizenship and mixed constitution as necessary prerequisites for freedom, interpreted as the absence of illegitimate domination. I also argue that there are, however, significant differences between Ricoeur’s theory and the main currents in contemporary republicanism, civic republicanism, and civic humanism, because of his reliance on a positive conception of freedom on the one hand and his emphasis on the fragility of politics on the other hand.

Rawls’s Political Liberalism

The contribution that John Rawls has made to political philosophy, and liberal political philosophy more specifically, should not be underestimated. His two key texts, A Theory of Justice (1971), and Political Liberalism (1993), not only reinvigorated social contract theory, but set the foundation for much of the contemporary debate surrounding the nature of the liberal democratic state given the fact of reasonable pluralism. If the European philosophical tradition, as noted by Alfred North Whitehead, should be seen as a series of footnotes to Plato, then contemporary Anglo-American political philosophy, especially if it intersects with aspects of liberal political philosophy, could be seen as a footnote to Rawls.

The problem of the future in postwar Anglo-American political philosophy

Among the conceptual problems raised by climate change is that of how to think about the future. Theories of intergenerational justice and other accounts of obligations to the future in Anglo-American philosophy tend to argue that the remote future matters morally. Where did these arguments come from? This essay explores the roots of contemporary ideas about the remote future in debates that took place among Anglophone philosophers in the 1970s.

Humean Property Theory: A Defense

Two rival approaches to property rights dominate contemporary Anglo-American political philosophy: Lockean natural rights and Rawlsian distributive justice. This paper defends a third approach, which can be traced to David Hume. Like Rawlsian rights and unlike Lockean rights, Humean property rights are not grounded in pre-institutional moral entitlements. However, in contrast to the Rawlsian approach, which starts with highly abstract principles of distributive justice and analyzes particular property rules in light of these principles, Humean theory begins with simple property conventions and shows how more complex institutions can be justified against a background of settled property rights. Property rights allow people to coordinate their actions with respect to scarce resources. For property rules to serve this function effectively, certain questions must be considered settled so that people do not have to solve their coordination problem from scratch each time a new question arises. Treating existing property claims as having prima facie validity facilitates cooperation between people who disagree about distributive justice. Lockean and Rawlsian theories, by contrast, endorse moral claims that threaten to unsettle conventional property rights and thus undermine social cooperation. Hume’s theory of justice is often seen as too thin to justify strong moral entitlements as well as unduly conservative in its implications. In response to the former concern, I defend a Humean theory of social cooperation. In response to the latter objection, I demonstrate how Humean property theory is compatible with liberal as well as conservative policy preferences.

Decolonizing Western Political Philosophy

The past few decades have seen a wave of decolonization in the Western academy. Across a wide array of disciplines—anthropology, cultural studies, education, geography, history, international relations, law, above all, perhaps, literature—we have witnessed the beginnings (and sometimes much more) of a self-conscious rethinking and reorientation of the subject in the light of its past complicity, direct or indirect, with the colonial project. But the rate of progress has not been uniform. I suggest that in Western political philosophy in particular, the decolonizing enterprise has a long way to go, indeed in some respects has barely begun. In this essay, I do a general critique of the tradition for its Eurocentrism, and then turn to a critique of the work of John Rawls specifically, given his centrality to current Anglo-American political philosophy.

Kant's Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications

For a long time in Anglo-American political philosophy “Kant’s political philosophy” meant not Kant’s own developed political thought, but an application of his moral theory to political issues. Thankfully, Kant’s legal and political thought is experiencing a renaissance in the English-speaking world after a long period of neglect. Not only Kant’s short political writings such as Toward Perpetual Peace, “On The Common Saying: This May be True in Theory but it Does Not Hold in Practice,” and “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment” are being rediscovered; also the Doctrine of Right, the first part of the Metaphysics of Morals of 1797 and a notoriously difficult work not least due to editorial complications in Kant’s time, is receiving growing attention in the Anglo-American Kant scholarship. Elisabeth Ellis’ volume is a fine example of this development.

The sources of communitarianism on the American left: Pluralism, republicanism, and participatory democracy

This article considers the nature of communitarian thought in late twentieth century Anglo-American political philosophy. It argues that communitarianism arose out of a critique of modernist theories of justice such as that of John Rawls shared by a group of writers committed to idealist principles that emphasised narrative approaches to the study of political thought, the importance of historical context, and popular participation in political life. It then focuses on one particular American strand of communitarian thought, exemplified by the work of Michael Walzer and Michael Sandel, which draws on a tradition of radical democracy and, in so doing, helps both to create and to transform a new American republicanism. An important connection between Walzer and Sandel is that they share the view that egalitarian politics must draw on shared traditions of social criticism rather than on the abstract individualism that they associate with Rawls. A key difference is that Walzer's vision of American life is pluralist and enthusiastic about difference, whereas Sandel's is republican and concerned above all with fostering civic virtue and identification with the state and political community.

The Very Rich Hours of Jacques Maritain: A Spiritual Life, and: Jacques Maritain: An Intellectual Profile (review)

Reviewed by: The Very Rich Hours of Jacques Maritain: A Spiritual Life, and: Jacques Maritain: An Intellectual Profile John Hittinger The Very Rich Hours of Jacques Maritain: A Spiritual Life. By Ralph M. McInerny. (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 2003. Pp. viii, 235. $32.00.) Jacques Maritain: An Intellectual Profile. By Jude P.Dougherty. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press. 2003. Pp. 128. $21.95 paperback.) These two books show the reason for the long-term influence and inspiration of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1881-1973). Convert, Thomist, man of letters, statesman, teacher, churchman, little brother of Jesus, Maritain couldbe the single best representative of the twentieth-century Thomist revival spawned by Aeterni Patris. Dougherty's Profile presents a series of seven themes in Maritain's broad corpus concerning philosophy of science, metaphysics, aesthetics, political philosophy, church and state, and ecclesiology. Each chapter is sharply focused and provides an incisive account of Maritain's treatment of the given problem. Dougherty shows how Maritain drew upon the Thomistic sources, developed their inner possibilities, and arrived at timely and creative approaches to problems of the day. Dougherty does an especially fine job at providing points of comparison in twentieth-century philosophical developments around similar themes. Dewey, Royce, Eddington, Harré, Ortega y Gasset, and Rawls are effectively used as counterpoints to Maritain. In each case, Maritain is shown to be a philosopher with a keen grasp of major problems of the twentieth century who holds his own in the market place of ideas. With the issue of state sovereignty and international [End Page 568] co-operation Maritain developed a prophetic stance, anticipating some of the best of Anglo-American political philosophy. Behind Maritain's philosophical sketches, one finds an abiding love of Christ and the Church. Maritain's intellectual prowess was always at the service of Catholic truth. Dougherty handles well the issue of Maritain's apologetic stance. He did not sacrifice intellectual rigor or integrity, but he always found the splendor of truth pointing to the mysteries of faith. For good reason does John Paul II recommend Maritain as an exemplar of the integrated life of faith and reason. Any reader who wishes to see the sweep of his philosophy and to get a feel for the exciting advances made by Maritain in the fields mentioned above can do no better than to read Dougherty's book. McInerny's book follows the golden thread of spirituality that weaves itself throughout the life and works of Jacques Maritain. Prayer and liturgy were the bedrock of his entire life and work, pioneering the way for an appreciation of the layman's call to holiness. He is a congenial figure because the voice heard "is not that of a careerist, an academic, or a man jealous of his reputation." McInerny's book is surely the first to capture the full and true stature of Maritain, the man and philosopher. He provides us a detailed look at the spiritual dimension of Maritain's work; the book is structured around the medieval book of hours, displaying his life as a whole at each stage from Matins to Compline. At each stage we find a man of rich interior life, prayer, and meditation. One can appreciate his growth as a Catholic and an intellectual. McInerny treats with great finesse the notion of Christian philosophy, again like Dougherty, showing why Pope John Paul II selects him as a model of "faith and reason." In this context, McInerny provides a systematic account of his major works. From metaphysics and epistemology, to aesthetics, political philosophy, and ethics, the sweep of Maritain's philosophy is well displayed and the reader is invited to return to and read Maritain's books. A handsomely produced volume, The Very Rich Hours of Jacques Maritain reveals the admirable spiritual and intellectual character of Jacques Maritain. These two books by Dougherty and McInerny are a fitting tribute by two leading American Catholic philosophers to a great mentor whose life and work will continue to inspire generations to come. John Hittinger Sacred Heart Major Seminary Detroit, Michigan Copyright © 2004 The Catholic University of America Press

Fresh Perspectives on School Choice

School choice advocacy is dominated by perspectives that reflect a tendency to regard public schooling as a private service commodity. In recent years, numerous works of Anglo-American political philosophy, sociology and legal theory have attempted to restore a conception of public schooling as an institution that cultivates civic virtue. Counterintuitively, these works also endorse prudently regulated school choice as a means of honouring public purposes while accommodating pluralism within liberal democracies. Four such recent works help outline the salient dimensions of this perspective and the disputes within it. While not a political panacea, this perspective ought to inform public deliberations about school choice and public education generally in Anglophone nations.

Justice, the Basic Structure, and Stability

This paper defends the claim that justice applies, and only applies, to people's legally constrained choices. To the extent that a theory of justice applies to, makes requirements to, legally unconstrained choices, the theory is unstable. Prima facie this is a rather restrictive position in the recent debate in Anglo-American political philosophy regarding the appropriate scope of justice — what is it precisely that justice applies to, that is, to what and/or whom does it make requirements? The view does not, however, in fact constitute a narrow scope of justice. If justice is of over-riding importance, and if its stability requires coercion, then it is unclear that any choices of relevance to justice (any acts that have implications for the distribution of benefits and burdens in society) should in fact be left legally unconstrained. So circumscribing justice to coercive institutions does indeed address the choices of relevance to justice, and does so in a determined (and perhaps, at least from a perspective external to justice, unsettling) way.

‘Inevitable and Unacceptable?’ Methodological Rawlsianism in Anglo-American Political Philosophy

This article attempts two parallel tasks. First, it gives a sympathetic explication of the implicit working methodology (‘Methodological Rawlsianism’) of mainstream contemporary political theory in the English-speaking world. And second, principally in footnotes, it surveys the recent literature on justification to see what light these debates cast on the tenets of this methodology. It is worth examining methodological presuppositions because these can have a profound influence on substantive theories: many of the differences between philosophical traditions can be traced to their methodologies. My aim is to expose the central features of methodological Rawlsianism in order to challenge critics of this tradition to explain exactly where and why they depart from the method. While I do not defend it at length, I do suggest that methodological Rawlsianism is inevitable insofar as it is basically a form of common sense. This fact should probably lower expectations about the amount of progress consistent methodological Rawlsians are likely to make in grounding comprehensive normative political theories.

Human Rights and Polish Reality

Contrary to widespread relativism in the contemporary world, the idea of human rights argues for the existence of objective values. This idea rooted in the Christian tradition unifies, in a way, Anglo-American and Continental political philosophy. Under communism in Poland, the clearness of the idea of human rights established an important weapon in the hands of the Polish opposition. After the collapse of communism in 1989, the political elite in Poland was faced with the task of building a new structure for the state. However, embracing the idea of the welfare state as a main factor in the process of transition to democracy, Poland shares many dilemmas of the wealthy Westem countries, making the shift from communism much slower.

Equality, Sufficiency, and Opportunity in the Just Society

It seems to be almost a given of contemporary Anglo-American political philosophy that the just society is obligated to establish and ensure the equality of its members. Debate begins when we come to delineate the forms and limits of the equality society is obligated to underwrite. In this essay I offer the subversive suggestion that equality is not something the just society should aim for. Instead I offer another objective, one which is to be preferred both because it is more attainable and because it is morally more defensible than equality, either as an ideal or as an operative principle. The demand for equality of treatment, of opportunity, or of outcome, is a distraction from morally more significant aims.

A Truer Liberty: Simone Weil and Marxism.

Simone Weil - philosopher, trade union militant, factory worker - developed a penetrating critique of Marxism and a powerful political philosophy which serves as an alternative both to liberalism and Marxism. In A Truer Liberty , Blum and Seidler show how Simone Weil's philosophy differed from Marxism: she sought to put political action on a firmly moral basis. Weil criticized Marxism for its confidence in progress and revolution and its attendant illusory belief that history is on the side of the proletariat. The authors relate Weil's work to influential trends in political philosophy today, from the 'analytic' Marxism of Gerald Cohen and others to the liberal tradition of Anglo-American political philosophy represented by Rawls, Dworkin, and others.

Justifying the State

To escape the state of nature, people would submit to an absolute sovereign. Therefore, absolute sovereignty is justified. So argued Thomas Hobbes. A minimal state, and only a minimal state, could arise by an invisible hand process. Therefore, the minimal state is justified. So argued Robert Nozick. In political philosophy, therefores often seem to come from nowhere. My versions of these arguments are caricatures, of course, but many of us are also left wondering by the real thing. Do Hobbes's contractarian story and Nozick's invisible hand story have anything to do with justifying the state? What would a story have to be like to engage such a task? These questions matter. Rational choice theories like that of Hobbes (and after him, Rawls) and natural rights theories like that of Nozick (and before him, Locke) are the wellsprings of current Anglo-American political philosophy, supplying not only our subject matter but our methods as well.' If they don't make sense, then generally speaking, neither do we. I will distinguish between two different kinds ofjustification in political theory. This distinction can help us avoid being distracted by problems that are mere artifacts of contractarian methodology, only appearing to be relevant to justifying states per se. This will help us explain what is irreparably wrong with hypothetical consent arguments, why we find them appealing nevertheless, and what kind of argument can actually make use of that appealing hypothetical element. The distinction will also clarify the limited sense in which invisible hand processes can be relevant to a state's justification.

Assessing the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism

As liberal political regimes have been the dominant form of political organization in the West, so liberalism has prevailed in Anglo-American political philosophy. In the past few years, however, a vigorous challenge to liberal political philosophy-and by implication to the political institutions it attempts to legitimize-has arisen under the banner of "communitarianism." The communitarian challenge achieves its most powerful expression in the works of Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Michael Sandel.' My task here is to articulate some of the most central elements of the communitarian critique of liberalism and then to assess their merits by seeing whether liberalism has the resources to respond to them effectively. There are perhaps almost as many communitarian positions as there are communitarian writers. Nevertheless, some common threads run through most of the important communitarian works.2 The fundamental communitarian criticisms seem to be these: i) Liberalism devalues, neglects, and/or undermines community, and community is a fundamental and irreplaceable ingredient in the good life for human beings. ii) Liberalism undervalues political life-viewing political association as a merely instrumental good, it is blind to the fundamental importance of full participation in political community for the good life for human beings.

Moral philosophy and political problems.

LAR WORSE THAN CALLING a political philosopher's conclusions wrong is accusing his method of being misconceived. Since this accusation is intended to undercut the very enterprise in which a philosopher is engaged, it precludes consideration of the substance of his particular arguments. In this brief article, I want to pursue several such undercutting criticisms directed against the method of contemporary Anglo-American political and moral philosophy. I shall begin by considering those made by Philip Abbott in Philosophers and the Abortion Question.' I shall then turn to a series of criticisms that suggest that acontextualist accounts of our moral principles given by analytic philosophy provide no support for further moral or political argument. Abbott identified philosophic method too narrowly by its reliance upon hypothetical microexamples employed to test the moral validity of our intuitions or to aid us in justifying our moral preferences and principles. A broader and more accurate characterization of analytic moral philosophy would focus not on the use of microexamples, but rather, on the attempt to resolve by moral reasoning particular contemporary political and moral controversies. The attempt to bring moral reasons to bear upon political problems separates moral philosophy from philosophical analysis that stops at the clarification of concepts and from analyses of the political reasons for preferring one resolution to a moral conflict over another. Clarification of concepts is often a necessary prelude to the task of resolving a moral argument, and finding a politically prudential solution need not be unprincipled. But the emphasis of contemporary Anglo-American philosophy is upon the resolution of contemporary moral problems by applying, refining, and rendering consistent our moral intuitions.