Rawlsian Explorations in Religion and Applied Philosophy

162 Pages·2011·2.43 MB·English

by  Daniel A. Dombrowski

RAWLSIAN EXPLORATIONS IN RELIGION
AND APPLIED PHILOSOPHY
.................18018$ $$FM 05-04-1107:49:59 PS PAGEi
.................18018$ $$FM 05-04-1107:50:00 PS PAGEii
R AW L S I A N E X P L O R AT I O N S I N R E L I G I O N
A N D A P P L I E D P H I L O S O P H Y
DANIEL A. DOMBROWSKI
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS
UNIVERSITY PARK, PENNSYLVANIA
18018-tp.indd iii .................18018$ $$FM 05-04-1107:50:04 PS PA1/G28E/1ii1i 11:56 AM
Anearlierversionofpartsofchapter2appearedas
‘‘RawlsandWar,’’InternationalJournalofAppliedPhi-
losophy16(2002):185–200.Anearlierversionofparts
ofchapter5appearedas‘‘‘AllfortheGreaterGloryof
God’:WasSt.IgnatiusIrrational?’’
Logos9(2006):109–17.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Dombrowski,DanielA.
Rawlsianexplorationsinreligionandappliedphilosophy/DanielA.Dombrowski.
p. cm.
Summary:‘‘ExploresthepoliticalphilosophyofJohnRawlsinrelationtopublicpolicyissues,
includingwar,mentaldisability,nonhumananimals,legacy,andaffirmativeaction.Pays
specialattentiontotherelationshipofreligiontotheseissuesandtotheprocessual
characteristicsofRawls’smethod’’—Providedbypublisher.
Includesbibliographicalreferences(p.)andindex.
isbn978-0-271-04873-4(cloth:alk.paper)
1. Policysciences—Moralandethicalaspects.
2. Politicalscience—Philosophy.
3. Religionandpolitics.
4. Rawls,John,1921–2002.
5. Rawls,John,1921–2002—Religion.
I.Title.
h97.d642011
320.092—dc22
2011002909
Copyright(cid:2)2011ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity
Allrightsreserved
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
PublishedbyThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,
UniversityPark,PA16802-1003
ItisthepolicyofThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity
Presstouseacid-freepaper.Publicationsonuncoated
stocksatisfytheminimumrequirementsofAmerican
NationalStandardforInformationSciences—Per-
manenceofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterial,
ansiz39.48-1992.
ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityPressisamember
oftheAssociationofAmericanUniversityPresses.
ThisbookisprintedonNaturesNatural,which
contains50%post-consumerwaste.
.................18018$ $$FM 05-04-1107:50:04 PS PAGEiv
CONTENTS
Preface vii
1
Rawls,NaturalRights,andtheProcess
ofReflectiveEquilibrium 1
2
ARawlsianViewofWar 20
3
Nussbaum,MentalDisability,andAnimalEntitlements:
ARawlsianPerspective 42
4
ARawlsianCritiqueofLegacyandAffirmativeAction 66
5
‘‘AllfortheGreaterGloryofGod’’:
WasSaintIgnatiusIrrational? 90
6
RawlsianReligion 110
References 127
Index 139
.................18018$ CNTS 05-04-1107:50:04 PS PAGEv
.................18018$ CNTS 05-04-1107:50:04 PS PAGEvi
PREFACE
OneofthemostcommoncriticismsofJohnRawls’spoliticalphilosophy
is that it is ‘‘too abstract.’’ Sometimes this criticism is leveled against
Rawlsbythosewholackthetimeortrainingtoworkthroughhisadmit-
tedly difficult writings. But at other times it is used by scholars who are
botheredbythedistancebetweenRawlsiantheoryandtheactualpolitical
world in which we live. As one colleague, after reading Rawls carefully,
put it, one does not know how to get from ‘‘here’’ to ‘‘there’’ in Rawls,
‘‘there’’beingtherealisticutopiathatRawlshadinmind.
Admittedly, there are very good reasons why Rawls’s thought is so
abstract.InordertodealwiththequestionsthatwerecentraltoATheory
of Justice, Rawls was led to social contract theory, but only to a version
that was raised to a higher level of abstraction than that found in tradi-
tionalsocialcontracttheorists(Rawls1996,xvii).Thisneedforagreater
degree of abstraction is amplified in his later writings, wherein citizens
are seen to differ, sometimes uncompromisingly so, in the comprehen-
sive doctrines that they are willing to affirm (which are very often reli-
gious in character), such that the differences themselves generate the
processofabstractionsoastoachievethehighergroundthatisrequired
tounderstandwhatajustsociety(orajustinternationalorder)wouldbe
like. That is, by abstracting from the social world we are able ‘‘to gain a
clear and uncluttered view’’ (Rawls 2001, 8) of the subject matter so as
to deal appropriately with a few crucial questions. Rawls is rightly ada-
mantthat hedoesnotneedto apologizefortheabstractandsupposedly
unworldlycharacterofhisphilosophy(Rawls1996,lxii).
Itshouldbenoted,however,thatoneneednotapologizeforthedesire
tomakephilosophicalideasconcrete,either.AsAlfredNorthWhitehead
observed,‘‘Thetruemethodofdiscoveryisliketheflightofanaeroplane.
It starts from the ground of particular observation; it makes a flight in
thethinairofimaginativegeneralization[thinkoftheoriginalposition];
.................18018$ PREF 05-04-1107:50:07 PS PAGEvii
viii preface
and it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute by rational
interpretation’’ (1978, 5). To continue with this metaphor, the present
book is meant to facilitate the landing of Rawls’s theoretical craft, the
most important in political philosophy since at least the time of the
Wrightbrothers.
To be precise, this book is intended to fill the gap between Rawls’s
ownempyreanheightsandthereallypracticalpublicpolicyproposalsof
government planners,lobbyists,and legislators.Fromtheperspectiveof
thelatter,whatIdointhisbookwilllookverytheoreticalandphilosophi-
cal, whereas from the perspective of political philosophers, what I do in
this book may appear somewhat pedestrian. But there is nothing wrong
with walking. Indeed, the whole point of theoretical flights in political
philosophy is to facilitate better walking. As I see things, both words in
thetitleofthebookarecrucial:appliedphilosophy.
No doubt one of the reasons why Rawls did not do more in the area
of applied philosophy was his fear that philosophers who achieve celeb-
rity status in popular culture see their best arguments misunderstood
and hence the philosophical enterprise itself diluted. But Rawls himself
stressestheimportanceofnonidealtheoryaswellasidealtheory,atleast
as long as the latter guides the former. In any event, Samuel Freeman
astutely alerts us to the fact that the great political philosophers of the
modernperiodhavetypicallyhadtheirgreatestpracticalinfluenceinthe
centuries after they wrote: Locke lived in the seventeenth century but
greatly influenced the revolutions of the eighteenth; Smith lived in the
eighteenthcentury,buthis greatestinfluencewasinthenineteenthand
twentieth;Marxlivedinthenineteenthcentury,butthecommunistrevo-
lutions in his name occurred in the twentieth. It is not unreasonable to
hope that liberal democracies in the twenty-first century will be more
Rawlsian than they were in the twentieth (see Freeman 2007b, 5, 458,
472; Pincus 2009). Further, the recent collapse of communism in east-
ern Europe and the recent financial crisis brought about by a relatively
unconstrained version of capitalism provide apertures for Rawlsians to
thinkanewaboutthepraxicimplicationsofjusticeasfairness.
The ‘‘in-between’’ status of the present book is not unique, in that
excellentworkhasbeendoneoverthepastseveraldecades(mostrecently
byFreeman, ThomasPogge,and PercyLehning)in exploringtheimpli-
cationsofRawls’sthoughtforpracticalissueslikethejustdistributionof
income,fair taxpractices, inheritedwealth, universalhealthcare, defen-
siblerelationsbetweenchurchandstate,theeliminationof‘‘thecurseof
.................18018$ PREF 05-04-1107:50:08 PS PAGEviii
preface ix
money’’ on politics, and so on. But, as I see things, there is still signifi-
cant ‘‘in-between’’ work to be done in several important areas, six of
which are explored here. The problems that I examine mostly involve
religion, either problems in political liberalism that bear on religion or
problemsinreligionthatbearonpoliticalliberalism.
Myhopeisthatthe‘‘in-between’’statusofthisbookwillactuallymake
itinstructiveforscholarswhoareprimarilyinterestedintheintrinsically
interesting theoretical issues in Rawlsian political philosophy, in that
critical assessment of theoretical positions requires, in part, a consider-
ation of how they play out in practice. It is also my hope that the book
willbeinstructiveforthosewhoseinterestsinpoliticsareprimarilyprac-
tical, in that solutions to practical problems are often stalled owing to
disagreements at the theoretical level. That is, because neither theory
norpracticecanbeconvenientlyignoredinpoliticalphilosophy,the‘‘in-
between’’statusofthepresentbookcanbeseenasoneofitsvirtues.
Inchapter1ItrytoexplainanddefendtheRawlsianmethodofreflec-
tive equilibrium. In this regard I enter into dialogue primarily with the
traditional theist Nicholas Wolterstorff and his defense both of natural
rights and of the (startling) claim that Rawls is a natural rights theorist.
Iemphasizethat reflectiveequilibriuminvolvesaprocessofjustification,
rather than a strictly ahistorical, algorithmic appeal to the deliberations
that occur in the original position. This chapter is preparatory for the
rest of the book because it enables us to understand the very practical
ramifications of finding a place for natural rights in the Rawlsian uni-
verse. It also enables us to understand the transition from considered
judgmentstounconsideredconsequencesthatcharacterizesappliedphi-
losophyingeneral.InthischapterIalsodiscussthethornyissueofhow
to justify the belief that human beings deserve political respect without
Wolterstorff’sappeal(andRawls’sownappeal,albeitataveryearlystage
of his career) to the imago Dei hypothesis that human beings are made
intheimageofGod.
The second chapter explicates Rawls’s complex views regarding the
moralityofwar.Ishowthathisstanceis,forthemostpart,thatofajust
war theorist in the mold of Michael Walzer. Unfortunately, however,
Rawls is also like Walzer in moving away from just war theory toward
the realpolitik view of war in conditions of supreme emergency. I argue
that Rawls’s best contributions to political philosophy would be en-
hancedifhemovedintheoppositedirection,awayfromjustwartheory
and toward pacifism. That is, I think that Rawls is sometimes mistaken
.................18018$ PREF 05-04-1107:50:08 PS PAGEix