JUSTICE

Justice generally

· Why might one argue that the best way to think about justice is in terms of spheres of justice?

· Regarding the Book of Job: We speak about justice as “getting what one deserves.” So did Job get what he deserved? Or is that the wrong question?

Justice and Economics

· What are the fundamental differences between the needs and merit arguments in their respective views of what human beings deserve?

· What are the differences between these positions in their views of society as a whole (e.g. meritocracy)?

· We went through a thought experiment in which I asked you to imagine yourself in the original position behind a veil of ignorance? How might this experiment help us understand principles of economic justice? What does it assume about human beings? Do you agree with John Rawls' choice of principles, especially the maximin (or difference) principle?

Criminal Justice

· Why did I suggest that consequentialism is forward-looking while retribution looks back? What does this way of looking at punishment have to do with each position’s approach to the guilt of the accused?

· What are some of the means to the end of “future goods” in the consequentialist argument? In particular, what is the difference between a specific and general deterrence?

· Contrast the “stimulus-response” orientation of consequentialism with retribution’s focus on the categorical imperative.

· Is retribution any different than revenge? Why or why not?

Justice and War

· Just War Theory

o In just war theory, what is the difference between jus as bellum and jus in bello? How do the specific principles (e.g. just cause, necessity, legitimate authority, right intention, reasonability, discrimination, proportionality, humanity) of just war apply in concrete situations?

o How might alternatives such as pacifism respond to just war theory?

o In what ways, if at all, did the exchange on Iraq between Kagan/Kristol and Ignatief reflect different views of just war theory?

· Conscientious objection

o What are some basic reasons for military conscription beyond simply providing personnel to protect a territory?

o How did we define conscientious objection? Why do political communities often distinguish between objections to specific wars and war in general? And why do those communities often look to religion as a key grounds for justified conscientious objection? (For further reference, see our reading on US v. Seeger.)

An alternative view: Did Job get justice (i.e., what he deserved)? Does it matter?

DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL VALUES

I. Equality

· Is political conflict inevitable? What assumptions about human nature or psychology explain your answer?

· Utopianism assumes that “estrangement” is not an essential part of human nature, but is rather the result of changeable circumstances (e.g. More on private property). Various utopians suggest that exercising our reason or relying on religious revelation can help us overcome our apparent estrangement. Do you agree? If not, how would you respond to the argument that you have taken an excessively dim view of the human capacity to reason?

· How would anarchists, democrats (of various stripes), elitists, conservatives, or fascists view the following assertion: “Every citizen has the capacity to rule, so we are therefore political equals”?

· The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... .” Do you think Jefferson and the other founders would agree that the equality they assert in this statement is based in each citizen’s capacity to rule? Or is our political equality the result of some sort of moral equality (for example, what does it mean to say we are created with equality)?

· Tocqueville compared French aristocracy with American democracy and argued that the defining feature of American public life is equality of condition. Though he was exhilarated by American democracy, he was also concerned about it. Why? In particular, why did he fear that it would degenerate into either a tyranny of the minority or a tyranny of the majority?

· Some theorists have argued that democracy leads to leveling in society, that is, that democratic equality breeds economic, cultural, and political homogeneity. I suspect they would see this leveling at work in mass culture today, and critics like Gasset would argue that it becomes institutionalized in the state and therefore reinforced through the state’s coercive power. Do you see a leveling in today’s society? If you do, is that leveling the result of the democratic value of equality, or are there other potential explanations?

· One view of equality is that people who are similarly situated should be treated similarly. But, for political purposes (e.g. in terms of our rights), what does it mean to say that we are similarly situated, given the fact that human beings differ from each other in significant ways? What would liberal and radical feminists have to say about the relationship between equality and difference? What might Bentham or Singer say about that relationship and its applicability to animals and speciesism?

III. Freedom

· Does it make sense to say that human beings are “born free”?

· A liberal might argue that the final goal of government is to enable individuals to live as they choose. Is this a moral statement? How might moral relativists and moral absolutists differ on the answer to that question?

· How would liberals and communitarians explain trends toward less political participation in the United States? How do their positions approach the distinction between negative and positive freedom? (J.S. Mill’s harm principle is relevant to this discussion as well.)

FINAL EXAM SCENARIO (40% of final grade)

You are marooned, with little hope of escape, on an Earth-like planet with more than enough people to maintain a healthy diversity in the gene pool (approximately 1,000 new citizens). There are some plants and animals on the planet to provide sustenance for your people, though there will likely be times of scarcity, just like you’d had back home on Earth. Indeed, the climate, resources, and other aspects of the terrain immediately around you are remarkably similar to the Midwestern United States, and you have good reason to suspect that you will find Earth-like variations in geology and climate as you venture beyond your current surroundings. In addition, since you were traveling through space for a long time period, you have an excellent diversity of talent on the spacecraft, including doctors, teachers, philosophers, home economists, cooks, musicians, poets, scientists, security personnel, engineers, clergy, and many others.

Perhaps because they assume former GVSU Honors students are remarkably smart and perhaps because you had been a world famous political scientist on earth, your fellow travelers charge you with proposing some criteria for the basic governmental structure and laws for your new home. In particular, they ask you to do the following:

(1) Propose a form of government, or none at all. Having taken HNR 235 back in the old days, you recall several basic forms: liberal and participatory democracy, elitism and conservatism, fascism, republicanism, and anarchy. But your peers have given you free reign to propose variations on or hybrids of these traditional forms of government; you could even scrap them altogether in favor of other designs.

(2) Explain whether residents will have an obligation to the new political community, and if so, on what grounds. You recall cynicism, various forms of consent, natural law, and communitarian positions from HNR 235, but you’re again given free rein to create your own version.

(3) Propose just criteria for deciding both criminal punishment and the distribution of wealth. Again, you recall various ways of approaching these topics: retribution, consequentialism, needs, merit, and even some argument from a guy named Rawls about an “original position.” You may use these approaches, or strike out on your own with a different one.

Your fellow travelers require that in providing this proposal, you give reasons and address counterarguments. Giving reasons means that, among other things, you must discuss your own assumptions about human beings, including the likelihood of conflict and the importance, if any, of values such as freedom and equality. In fact, they suggest that the most coherent and consistent proposal would explain how such values play a role in every aspect of the criteria you propose. Your peers also realize that you are far from home, and so they only expect you to utilize resources that you have take with you on the journey. It just so happens that you have taken your cherished readings from HNR 235, which you look upon with tears of great happiness and fond memory every night.