Professional Documents
Culture Documents
pg. 25, Humean sort of argument which leave ordinary sentiments in place until strong arguments for rejection appear
In moral and political philosophy, in particular, we build upon existing sentiments and judgements, correcting them
only when they are inconsistent or plainly flawed in some other way.
We dont aspire to some universal and rational foundation such as Kant.
From this standpoint that Miller defend nationality
Does not seek to justify standpoint
Try to build political theory based of attachments and allegiances
Do two things:
1. Examine arguments against nationality and show flawed
2. Assuage tension between the ethical (pg. 26) particularism implied by such commitments and ethical
universalism
Show why universally advantageous for people to have national loyalties
Philosophers may protest that only reasons for belief/action are from impersonal perspective
Give weight to both agent-neutral and agent-relative reasons
But nationalistic concerns seem to represent not a different segment of moral life, but 'a competing way of
understanding the concepts and principles that make up the impartial or agent-neutral standpoint.
Paradox that nationalism on rise, but nationalists on defensive
Seems to be because of view that it cannot withstand rational scrutiny
Also widely felt to be a backward-looking, reactionary notion.
HG Wells: Our true nationality is mankind.
Orwell: all that dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juce drinkers
who come flocking toward the smell of progress like bluebottles to a dead cat.
What is a nation?
Nationality defended
Real question is whether national identities perform such valuable functions that our attitude, as philosophers, should be
one of acquiescence if not positive endorsement.
Argue answers one of the most pressing needs of the modern world
Maintains solidarity among populations of states that are large and anonymous
pg. 32, Assume need for solidarity, where there is a strong tendency towards social atomization'
Needed to provide collective goods etc.
Nationality is de facto the main source of such solidarity.
On Humean basis, enough to commend it
Precisely because of mythical element that national identity can be reshaped to meet new challenges/needs
Ability to change story means we can change substance of national identity
e.g. Change in interpretation of British imperialism
this imaginary aspect of nationality may be a source of strength.
Allows people of different political persuasions to share political loyalty, as lines of common background blurred
Shows nationality not a conservative idea
Often associated with liberal and socialist programmes too
pg. 33, Conservative may even reject nationalism
invokes the activist idea of a people collectively determining its own destiny.
The liberal objection
Liberal critique that nationality is detrimental to the cultural pluralism that liberals hold dear
pg. 34, Derives from assumption that national identities are exclusive in their nature
that where a state embodies a single nationality, the culture that makes up that nationality must drive out
everything else.
But nationality is not an all-embracing identity
Need not extend to all cultural attributes
Liberal argument assumes no line can be drawn
Mill flips argument to say that Unless the several groups that compose a society have the mutual sympathy and
trust that stems from a common nationality, it will be virtually impossible to have free institutions.
Liberal critique that line can be drawn, but national identities are always in practice biased in favour of the dominant cultural
group.
State may not suppress minorities, but does not accord equal respect and equal treatment
pg. 35, Admittedly descriptively true in many historical cases.
But not integral that national identities loaded in this way
Ability to redefine the national identity means can purge of bad elements
N.B. But no need to do so
Moreover, nationality seeks to be an inclusive identity, which can incorporate sub-groups
Argue furthers that what best meets the needs of minority groups is a clare and distinct national identity which
stands over and above the specific cultural traits of all the groups in the society in question.
Cannot argue that superimposition of national identity will be painless
pg. 36, While national identities are thinned down to make them more acceptable to minority groups, these groups
themselves must abandon values and ways of behaving that are in stark conflict with those of the community as a
whole.
Balkan objection argues that the principle of nationality cannot in practice be realized, but meanwhile the belief that it can
leads to endless political instability and bloodshed.
Would-be nationalities so entangled that no way of drawing boundaries so as to satisfy all claims
Nationality holds people who form a national community have good claim to self-determination
Not to be confused with certain liberal view of the state which makes individual consent condition of states authority
If each person must consent to the existence of the state, it follows that the borders of states should be drawn
whenever people wan them to be drawn.
Practical implication that any sub-community has right to secession
N.B. But then what does allow secession?
pg. 37, 'Central to the idea of nationality is not individual will, but individual identity.
N.B. Hard to disentangle surely?
If group is dissatisfied, question to ask is Does the group have a collective identity which is or has become
incompatible with the national identity of the majority in the state?
Broadly three answers to question:
1. Dissatisfied group is ethnic and feels materially not getting a fair deal and/or group identity is not being
respected
Case of Black Americans
Requires domestic reform, but not secession
N.B. This would then argue against Scotlands secession
2. Group has national identity, but is radically incompatible with identity of majority, where elements of
commonality and difference
Shared common historical identity, but distinct national character
e.g. Case of Scots and Welsh
Not secession case, but a constitutional arrangement which gives the sub-community
right of self-determination in those areas of decision which are especially central to its
own sense of nationhood.
3. State contains two or more nations with radically incompatible identities
No realistic possibility of shared identity
minority group has a prima facie case for secession.
Further conditions have to be met:
Some way of redrawing borders to create two viable states without insoluble
problems
N.B. Issue with South Sudan secession and the oil fields
Territory claimed by seceding group cannot contain minorities (pg. 38) whose own
identity is radically incompatible with new majoritys
Consideration given to small groups left in rump state
e.g. If Quebec left, leaving other French minorities out on a limb
the principle of nationality does not generate an unlimited right of secession.
Conclusion
Argue that unless philosophers refer to national identity they will lose contact entirely with the beliefs of the people they seek
to address.
pg. 40, But issue for nationalist philosopher is tension between national loyalties and limitations of own and others national
identities
no solution here but to strive for some kind of equilibrium between the everyday and the philosophical.
The Problem
pg. 161, Deep tension between national self-determination and global justice
Global justice, I will assume means distributive justice on a global scale.
If global, then rights and resources available to someone should depend only on characteristics of that
particular person.
Entails geographical must be regarded as irrelevant
pg. 162, Seems to be no theory that makes belonging to one or other society itself a relevant
consideration in deciding what is due.
Principle of national self-determination says people who inhabit continuous piece of territory form a national community who have
right to determine their own future
they are entitled to a form of collective autonomy.
Many cases, achieved by having independent state
Conflict of self-determination and global justice thus stems from the fact that under self-determination, inconceivable that
rights and resources would not differ
pg. 163, Not consider objections that national self-determination is not possible:
Argument that we do not find political communities with shared national identities in neatly bounded territories
Argument that choices open to nation-states constrained by actions of other nation-states
Even if so, no more palatable to global justice than to national self-determination
If all at the mercy of world market or states, no prospect that global allocation can match DJ
N.B. I dont know why not
Interdependence does not mean cannot cooperate
Assume nation states, individually or collectively, can take decisions affecting resource distribution
pg. 164, Such an assumption needed for both domestic DJ (DDJ) and CDJ
If the domestic distribution or resources is governed by the iron laws of economics, then
speculation about the principles of just distribution becomes pointless, and so equally for
international distribution of resources.
N.B. The point CDJ is making is not that at mercy means no control
Rather, it means that because we are interdependent, there is call for CDJ
pg. 167, Apparently appealing solution that national self-determination is valuable so long as it remains within the bounds
laid down by justice.
Justice imposes certain requirements, and as long as NSD conforms to these, it is a good thing
Analogy with individuals in the state
N.B. But isnt this a disanalogy, as Caney points out, as it treats groups as homogenous groups
See Caney, pg. 126
Resolves conflict by giving global justice priority
Solution in practice varies greatly with which DJ theory
Some may be so demanding, little room for NSD
Some less so
But analogy between individuals and groups misleading
overlooks the fact that nation-states are also engaged in the pursuit of an important form of justice - social
justice - among their own members.
Nations prevented from SD may also be prevented for practising justice among members
Ceases to be clear global justice has priority
pg. 168, But surely social justice simply global justice on a smaller scale
N.B. Scope2 claim from Caney
See Caney, pg. 107
Argument runs as:
Justice is a matter of entitlement
Social justice within society means state ensures access
Global justice demands ensemble of states should ensure access
This assumes we can give a think specification of the demands of justice in advance of the articulation of those
demands within the many different political communities that make up the world we inhabit.
More reasonable that conceptions of justice vary in different cultural milieux
Thus, under NSD, policies of social justice will vary
N.B. This is realistically true, but is this that justice varies, or that cultures distort it?
Miller isn't arguing for wide subjectivism, as he point more to world-view influence, rather than
conceptions a priori being different
Three reasons for divergence:
1. Justice has to with way valued goods are allocated
How goods conceived will vary between society
Point can be missed with basic goods
N.B. Hence talk of global right to subsistence covering these things
But justice covers more than basic goods
N.B. Interestingly, Rawls list of goods is pretty universal
Could that meet this claim?
pg. 169, the meaning of such goods is socially constituted.
2. Criteria of just distribution varies
Almost all societies discriminate on basis of merit
But different qualities held up as meritorious
N.B. Hence difference in whether or not we deserve fruits of talented labour
Moreover, difference in what is seen as need
Basic needs universal
But much else will depend on social norms
N.B. Hence why the goods that Rawls provides are universal goods
i.e. Primary goods, basic rights, income/wealth, responsibility
These work within the state among heterogeneous individuals, so why not
among states?
Assuming neutralism
3. Contexts in which criteria applied
Peoples judgments of which DJ depends on context of distribution
pg. 170, e.g. Money given for need, desert, lottery, or contractual right
we judge which criterion is the just criterion by considering the social context
N.B. Im sorry, this is bollocks
Relying too heavily on Humean sentiments
This is to take a very wishy washy notion of justice
Not suggesting societies have a free hand in deciding how to arrange the social contexts
Simply that where contexts differ, so will conceptions of justice
pg. 171, Not claiming subjectivism
claiming that the right answer must draw upon shared meanings and shared understandings
in such a way that it will not serve as an answer for all societies.
contextualist rather than subjectivist
N.B. Not a whole lot of difference
How to find best interpretation?
One perspective is that it is up to philosophers to developed DJ systematising peoples judgments
Another perspective is that deliberative democracy encourages citizens to understand social justice
N.B. Point made by some that it requires making arguments appealing to all
Not the purpose of deliberative democracy, but may well be a side-effect
pg. 172, Thus, if nations optimal sites for deliberative democracy, and it helps bring about shared conception of justice, then good
reason to favour nation-states for political organisation
Against global egalitarianism
clear that global justice cannot require that people everywhere should enjoy the same resources and advantages
regardless of their membership in particular political communities.
If demands of social justice vary, then membership must make a relevant difference
N.B. Unless we deny the former claim
Could argue global justice works at more abstract level, such as equal access to advantage (EAA)
Not sustainable, as radical heterogeneity of the things that together might constitute advantage
pg. 173, However, there is some across-the-board disadvantage, and global justice may simply require elimination of
that
Need to make clear whether this is to rectify relative or absolute disadvantage
In other words, is inequality the problem, or poverty?
Wrong to see problem as inequality per se
Cannot specify equality with different conceptions of justice
N.B. The issue of heterogeneity on whatever dimension of equality is applied
But, then EAA, as defined by Cohen, does seem to avoid that
Can only use weak equality principle of absolute poverty
injustice suffered only by those who are absolutely as well as relatively deprived.
Question whether egalitarian principles are right global principle
pg. 174, Some see justice and equality as one and the same
But justice assumes equality only in some contexts
In the absence of a politically-organized global community, this context cannot be stretched in such a
way as to make global inequalities unjust merely by virtue of their being inequalities.
Global justice
Conclusion
pg. 179, Once requirements of global justice met, considerable space for national communities to pursue their own projects
and objectives.
NSD means social justice can be reached in each community with a shared understanding
Global justice must be spelt out so it does not rely on thick local conceptions