Priority of liberty under non-ideal circumstances

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
L. Zanitelli
{"title":"Priority of liberty under non-ideal circumstances","authors":"L. Zanitelli","doi":"10.26694/PENSANDO.V9I18.7738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work addresses the applicability of Ralls’s theory of justice in non-ideal circumstances. The goal, more particularly, is to assess the urgency role that Rawls himself (1999, p. 216) and some interpreters (Stemplowska and Swift 2014, p. 117) confer to justice of fairness under non-ideal circumstances – here defined as circumstances in which the strict compliance condition (that social institutions abide by justice and that citizens follow institutional rules) is not met. In Ralls’s case, the target role means, in sum, that infringements to the first principle of justice (the basic liberties principles) must be treated as more serious and urging than infringements to the second principle, the same holding for the first part of the second principle (the fair equality of opportunity principle) in face of the second one (the difference principle). \n \nThe paper’s main conclusion is that a “strong” understanding of this urgency role has unbearable consequences, worse still than those entailed by the same relations of lexical priority between principles under the (ideal) condition of strict compliance. Considering, for example, the priority of the first principle over the second one, a strong interpretation of the urgency would warrant the conclusion that attempts against basic liberties are always more serious than attempts against fair equality of opportunity or the difference principle. As a consequence, it would be always more urging to face infringements of basic liberties than seek for a fairer distribution of opportunities, income and wealth. It further follows that, according to the target role understood in this way, institutional improvements envisaging the second principle (both fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle) would have to be postponed if they pose some obstacle to advancements in the basic liberties realm. The problem is that, in circumstances of no strict compliance, scarcity of political means needed to make institutional improvements may impose total neglect of second principle issues until the first principle is wholly satisfied.","PeriodicalId":40593,"journal":{"name":"Pensando-Revista de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pensando-Revista de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26694/PENSANDO.V9I18.7738","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This work addresses the applicability of Ralls’s theory of justice in non-ideal circumstances. The goal, more particularly, is to assess the urgency role that Rawls himself (1999, p. 216) and some interpreters (Stemplowska and Swift 2014, p. 117) confer to justice of fairness under non-ideal circumstances – here defined as circumstances in which the strict compliance condition (that social institutions abide by justice and that citizens follow institutional rules) is not met. In Ralls’s case, the target role means, in sum, that infringements to the first principle of justice (the basic liberties principles) must be treated as more serious and urging than infringements to the second principle, the same holding for the first part of the second principle (the fair equality of opportunity principle) in face of the second one (the difference principle). The paper’s main conclusion is that a “strong” understanding of this urgency role has unbearable consequences, worse still than those entailed by the same relations of lexical priority between principles under the (ideal) condition of strict compliance. Considering, for example, the priority of the first principle over the second one, a strong interpretation of the urgency would warrant the conclusion that attempts against basic liberties are always more serious than attempts against fair equality of opportunity or the difference principle. As a consequence, it would be always more urging to face infringements of basic liberties than seek for a fairer distribution of opportunities, income and wealth. It further follows that, according to the target role understood in this way, institutional improvements envisaging the second principle (both fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle) would have to be postponed if they pose some obstacle to advancements in the basic liberties realm. The problem is that, in circumstances of no strict compliance, scarcity of political means needed to make institutional improvements may impose total neglect of second principle issues until the first principle is wholly satisfied.
非理想环境下的自由优先权
这项工作探讨了拉尔斯的正义理论在非理想情况下的适用性。更具体地说,目标是评估罗尔斯本人(1999年,第216页)和一些口译员(Stemplowska和Swift 2014年,第117页)在非理想情况下赋予公平正义的紧迫性作用——这里定义为没有满足严格遵守条件(社会机构遵守正义,公民遵守制度规则)的情况。在Ralls的案例中,目标角色意味着,总的来说,对第一项正义原则(基本自由原则)的侵犯必须被视为比对第二项原则的侵犯更严重和更强烈,第二项原理的第一部分(公平机会平等原则)在面对第二项(差异原则)时也是如此。本文的主要结论是,对这种紧迫性角色的“强烈”理解会产生难以忍受的后果,比在严格遵守(理想)条件下原则之间相同的词汇优先关系所带来的后果更糟。例如,考虑到第一项原则优先于第二项原则,对紧迫性的有力解释将有理由得出这样的结论,即侵犯基本自由的企图总是比侵犯公平机会平等或差异原则的企图更严重。因此,与寻求更公平的机会、收入和财富分配相比,它总是更敦促人们面对对基本自由的侵犯。根据这样理解的目标角色,设想第二项原则(公平机会平等和差异原则)的制度改进如果对基本自由领域的进步构成一些障碍,就必须推迟。问题是,在没有严格遵守的情况下,缺乏进行体制改进所需的政治手段,可能会导致完全忽视第二项原则问题,直到第一项原则得到完全满足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信