Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Johann Fichte, Michael J. Sandel and Will Kymlicka

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


9 ideas

25. Social Practice / D. Justice / 1. Basis of justice
We can approach justice through welfare, or freedom, or virtue [Sandel]
     Full Idea: We have identified three ways of approaching the distribution of goods: welfare, freedom and virtue. ...and these are three ways of thinking about justice.
     From: Michael J. Sandel (Justice: What's the right thing to do? [2009], 01)
     A reaction: Virtue is Sandel's distinctively Aristotelian contribution to the problem. The best known instance of justice is punishment, which is a distribution of harms.
Justice corrects social faults, but also expresses respect to individuals as ends [Kymlicka]
     Full Idea: Justice is more than a remedial virtue. It does remedy defects in social co-ordination, ...but it also expresses the respect individuals are owed as ends in themselves, not as mean's to someone's good, or even to the common good.
     From: Will Kymlicka (Contemporary Political Philosophy (1st edn) [1990], 5.1)
     A reaction: That is, I take it, that justice operates at two different levels in our theoretical social thinking.
Communitarians see justice as primarily a community matter, rather than a principle [Kymlicka]
     Full Idea: Communitarians believe either that community replaces the need for principles of justice, or that the community is either the source of such principles or should play a greater role in deciding their content.
     From: Will Kymlicka (Community [1993], 'Intro')
     A reaction: [compressed] The idea that a racist or chauvinist or puritanical or insular community should decide justice for all its members sounds horrible. It drives you to liberal individualism, just thinking about it.
Justice resolves conflicts, but may also provoke them [Kymlicka]
     Full Idea: Justice can help mediate conflicts, but it also tends to creat conflicts, and to decrease the natural expression of sociability.
     From: Will Kymlicka (Community [1993], 'limits')
     A reaction: [He is discussing Michael Sandel on liberalism] Family life might not go well if all of its members continually demanded justice for themselves as individuals. Maybe our concept of justice is too individualistic? Do we need a sense of 'group' justice?
Justice concerns how a society distributes what it prizes - wealth, rights, power and honours [Sandel]
     Full Idea: To ask whether a society is just is to ask how we distribute the things we prize - income and wealth, duties and rights, powers and opportunities, offices and honours.
     From: Michael J. Sandel (Justice: What's the right thing to do? [2009], 01)
     A reaction: There is, of course, the prior question of what things should be controlled by a society for distribution. But there is also justice in the promotional and pay structure of institutions within a society, including private institutions.
Should we redress wrongs done by a previous generation? [Sandel]
     Full Idea: Can we ever have a moral responsibility to redress wrongs committed by a previous generation?
     From: Michael J. Sandel (Justice: What's the right thing to do? [2009], 07)
     A reaction: Just asking for a friend. It seems to depend on how close we feel to the previous generation. Regretting the crime committed by a beloved parent is one thing. Despising the crime committed by some right bastard who shares my nationality is another.
Distributive justice concern deserts, as well as who gets what [Sandel]
     Full Idea: Debates about distributive justice are about not only who gets what but also what qualities are worthy of honour and reward.
     From: Michael J. Sandel (Justice: What's the right thing to do? [2009], 07)
     A reaction: So the 'undeserving poor' get nuffink? Does just being a human being deserve anything? Obviously yes. That said, we can't deny the concept of 'appropriate reward'.
Justice is about how we value things, and not just about distributions [Sandel]
     Full Idea: Justice is not only about the right way to distribute things. It is also about the right way to value things.
     From: Michael J. Sandel (Justice: What's the right thing to do? [2009], 10)
     A reaction: This is Sandel's distinctively Aristotelian contribution to the justice debate - with which I have great sympathy. And, as he argues, the values of things arise out of assessing their essential natures.
Work is not fair if it is negotiated, even in a fair situation, but if it suits the nature of the worker [Sandel]
     Full Idea: For the libertarian free exchange for labour is fair; for Rawls it requires fair background conditions; for Aristotle, for the work to be just it must be suited to the nature of the workers who perform it.
     From: Michael J. Sandel (Justice: What's the right thing to do? [2009], 08)
     A reaction: [compressed] Aristotle's idea is powerful, and Sandel performs a great service in drawing attention to it. Imagine the key negotiation in an interview being whether this particular work suits your nature!