Spheres of justice a defense of pluralism and equality

7.89  ·  5,377 ratings  ·  941 reviews
Posted on by
spheres of justice a defense of pluralism and equality

Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality by Michael Walzer

Spheres of Justice represents Walzer’s half of a debate with Robert Nozick. (Nozick’s side of the debate is found in his Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which was also written as a response to Rawls’s Theory of Justice. Nozick defends a libertarian ideal of minimal government and a laissez-faire principle of distributive justice.)

Walzer argues for a conception of distributive justice that he refers to as “complex equality.” The idea is that there is no one correct principle of distribution that constitutes justice. Instead, there are different kinds of social goods—education, wealth, political power, etc.—and each constitutes a different “sphere.” Different forms of distribution are appropriate for different spheres. Justice might require strict equality in some spheres, merit-based distribution in another sphere, need-based distribution in yet another sphere, etc. Injustice, on Walzer’s view, consists primarily when one sphere, and its distribution of goods, comes to dominate other spheres. For example, if money and wealth became the dominant sphere in society (hard as that might be to imagine) and other goods such as education, healthcare, and political power were distributed according to wealth, then that would constitute injustice. Justice is primarily a matter of keeping the various spheres autonomous and distributing the goods of those spheres in ways that are independent of the distribution in other spheres. (A small number of people possessing most of the wealth would not necessarily constitute injustice if it meant only that those people had more material possessions. It is unjust when their wealth also gives them a greater share of the social goods in other spheres such as political power, control of the means of production, health care, etc.)

Also important is Walzer’s method. He rejects the idea that there might be one set of principles of distribution that determine justice for all societies and all times. Instead he insists that we must argue for principles of justice from the shared understandings of actual people. What sorts of things are good, and the principles of distribution appropriate for those goods, depends on the beliefs, values, and expectations of the actual members of society. It is this method ad its emphasis on how justice is determined (in part) by community standards that lumps Walzer into that group of political theorists who are collectively labeled “communitarians.”

Walzer’s general theory is presented in chapter 1 and the last chapter (13). The other (eleven) chapters each examine a particular kind of social good, searching for the form of distribution appropriate in that sphere and the potential for that sphere to dominate or be dominated by other spheres. This structure of the book allows for the reader to skip a few chapters, if desired. But fully understanding Walzer’s theory and appreciating its strength requires seeing how it applies to particular social issues and policy debates. It is especially important to read chapters 2, 3, 4, and 12 on membership (citizenship), security and welfare (including healthcare), money and commodities, and political power.

One drawback of Walzer’s approach is that his method of arguing from “shared cultural meanings” sometimes amounts to little more than an appeal to intuition. Opponents can reasonably dispute Walzer’s interpretation of the meaning of a particular good in our society. Nevertheless, Walzer’s theory is sophisticated yet simple and serves as a very useful and plausible analysis of a wide range of issues. Unlike many other communitarians, who offer only critiques of liberalism with little in the way of positive alternatives, Walzer argues for realistic communitarian approaches to contemporary political debates in our liberal society.

This book is making me rethink my general aversion to communitarian political theory.
File Name: spheres of justice a defense of pluralism and equality.zip
Size: 69856 Kb
Published 24.12.2018

Theories of Justice with reference to Amartya Sen, Michael Walzer and Joseph Raz

Spheres Of Justice: A Defense Of Pluralism And Equality [Michael Walzer] on smart-cycling.org *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The distinguished political.
Michael Walzer

Spheres of justice : a defense of pluralism and equality

Table of contents. Please choose whether or not you want other users to be able to see on your profile that this library is a favorite of yours. Finding libraries that hold this item You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Find a copy in the library

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover.

With each election comes the issue of the integration of minorities. Conservative parties favor the unity of the nation, while the progressive parties formulate a liberal integration, based on the free membership of minorities in the political community. Returning to clarify the debate on a text by the American Michael Walzer , Spheres of Justice , a major work of political philosophy in which he criticized the liberal positions on minorities. Since the emergence of the model of nation-state, the diversity of cultures has proved as a fact incompressible and irreducible. Contemporary democratic societies are confronted with the coexistence of several cultures, which calls into question the political model inherited from the Enlightenment.

Thank you! Domination, says Institute for Advanced Studies professor Walzer, is the real enemy of freedom, and domination takes many forms. Against John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and other contemporary political philosophers, Walzer argues that no single principle of equality can justifiably address all these forms. Rather, he maintains that different areas of social life--education, kinship and love, political office, moneymaking and spending--require different principles. Because someone is more beautiful than others, or smarter, does not entitle that person to a greater share of wealth or political power. Similarly, the wealthy person is not entitled to a lion's share of public recognition. What Walzer is really after is not equality but equalities: in different cultures these ""spheres"" will be ordered differently, according to different values.

2 thoughts on “Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality by Michael Walzer

Leave a Reply