Contents

List of Boxes and Tables Preface 1 Introduction Approaches to political theory Normative concepts and values Theoretical paradigms and frameworks The structure of this book

xi xiii 1 3 6 10 16 18 23 27 32 35 38 40 42 48 51 51 55 57 58 59 60 62 65 70 71 75 78 82 84

2 How Should Resources be Distributed? Taxation, Welfare and Redistribution Redistribution and the right to private property Equality and the case for redistribution Bad luck or bad choices? Ensuring human capabilities Sustaining communities through redistribution Conclusion 3 Are Minority Cultures Entitled to Recognition and Rights? Cultural rights versus individual freedom Group rights and cultural change Defending cultural rights: autonomy and the role of culture in personal identity Societal cultures and ethnic groups Intrinsic rights for minority cultures Group interests versus the common good Cultural rights versus egalitarian distribution Cultural rights versus gender equality Conclusion 4 Is Affirmative Action Fair? Weak and strong affirmative action The case in favour: justice and fairness The case in favour: positive consequences The case against: justice and fairness The case against: negative consequences Conclusion

vii

viii

Contents 86 91 93 93 95 95 96 100 104 107 109 112 114 115 119 121 123 125 127 127 132 132 133 134 137 139 139 140 142 145 147 147 148 150 152 159 161 162

5 Should Prostitution and Pornography be Legal? The conservative case against prostitution and pornography Community values and sex work Sex as a commodity Marriage and prostitution False consciousness The feminist case against pornography and prostitution Liberty, contract and sex work Feminist arguments for sexual freedom Conclusion 6 Should Same-Sex Marriage be Legal? Same-sex marriage, and gay and lesbian rights The freedom of contract argument Liberal arguments, rights and the role of marriage Communal values and moral argument Conservative opposition Radical opposition to marriage Conclusion 7 Should the State Prohibit Abortion and Euthanasia? Abortion law Morality and politics The foetus as a person and the case against abortion Self-ownership and bodily rights Distinguishing human life from personhood Womens rights and the feminist defence of abortion Care and our duties to others Abortion and sexual inequality Dealing with the divide over abortion: pluralism and toleration Euthanasia Autonomy, liberty and the right to die The limits of autonomy and the value of bodily life Utilitarian arguments in favour of assisted suicide The consequences of legalizing physician-assisted suicide and the slippery slope Conclusion 8 Should Offensive Speech be Regulated? The civil libertarian argument against regulating speech Freedom of speech and good self-government Democratic self-government and the case against offensive speech

Contents Freedom of speech rights versus the community good Free speech versus the recognition of cultural minorities Offensive speech and personal harm to group members Conclusion 9 Should Civil Liberties be Restricted in Responding to the Threat of Terrorism? Liberty and security: framing the debate State power and the protection of citizens The dangers of state power The democratic process and checks on executive power The fundamental role of liberties The selective impact of anti-terrorist measures on minorities Security and liberty: a critical perspective Conclusion 10 Should Rich Countries Give More Foreign Aid? Ethical arguments for redistribution to the worlds poor Social cooperation and the limits of justice Nationality and particular obligations Arguments against international aid Justice and obligation between nations Conclusion 11 Can Military Intervention in Other Countries be Justified on Humanitarian Grounds? Shifts in international political attitudes towards humanitarian intervention Intervention and international law State sovereignty Community membership and external assistance Community membership and the case for intervention Just War Justifying intervention: the cosmopolitan argument Conclusion 12 Should the Natural Environment be Protected for Future Generations? Nature as an intrinsic good Ecofeminism The utilitarian case for conserving resources Egalitarian arguments for conservation ix

ix 164 166 167 170

171 177 178 180 182 183 185 186 188 189 194 196 199 201 202 207

209

212 214 216 219 222 222 228

230 236 237 238 240

Contents Future generations and rights Natural environments and communities Private property and leaving enough for others Egalitarianism and the limits of justice Conclusion 242 243 245 245 249 251 253 269

List of Cases Bibliography Index

Chapter 1

Introduction
Despite the billion-dollar bail-out packages hastily put together by governments, the recession into which the world economy had slipped by late 2008 led to soaring prices and collapsing house values and savings, even in developed countries. Global growth slowed, but as World Bank President Robert Zoellick pointed out, the human cost of the crisis was particularly high in the developing world. The Bank predicted that 100 million people would be added to the ranks of the worlds poor, as a result of increases in fuel and food prices. The global financial crisis that precipitated the recession and its wider social effects raises many of the most fundamental questions we ask in politics. Some of these are practical: How did this economic crisis come about? How can it be solved? But normative questions those that address whether principles, policies and legislation are right, just or fair are just as crucial. These include: How should the worlds resources be apportioned? Should wealth be redistributed within nations, to reduce inequality? What, if any, are the obligations of people in developed and rich nations to the poor in the developing world? Should we conserve and protect scarce resources for future generations? These questions preoccupy students of politics and political theory in the western tradition. Of course, the global recession is not the only pressing practical political problem that raises normative issues. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, many nations have passed legislation designed to identify terrorists and prevent attacks. Critics have protested that these laws are unjustifiable encroachments on the civil liberties that define liberal democracies: Is it acceptable to tap phones if a government authority thinks that doing so might identify people planning terrorist attacks? Can we justify holding people for long periods without warrants and evidence, in defiance of the traditional protection of habeas corpus? Should we think of balancing liberty with security? Or, to ask one of the most central questions of modern politics: How extensive should the reach of state power be? These are some of the questions that we consider in this book. But we also examine from a normative perspective other policy issues that, while not so 1

Applying Political Theory

immediately pressing, have led to deep and widespread public controversy that has become embedded in public life. Many of these issues have a long history, but the lively debate around them in our own time reflects both the ethical and philosophical pluralism, and the participatory politics of modern liberal democracies: Should abortion and euthanasia be legal? How much power should the state have to regulate peoples decisions about the beginning and end of life? Should prostitution and pornography be legal? What are their implications for the equality of women? Should people be allowed to make free decisions that might run counter to community morality, or that might indirectly allow the exploitation of others to continue? Then there are other issues that arise from the cultural, social and ethical diversity of many modern states: Should minority cultures be protected with special rights? Should people be allowed to say whatever they choose about other cultures and groups? Should we try to compensate for historical injustices to minorities with affirmative action? Should institutions such as marriage be extended to same-sex couples? These are the kinds of questions that political theory can help us to grapple with, and it is the purpose of this book to explore the ways in which political theorists and philosophers have approached some of these particularly important and controversial policy problems. Political theory, especially normative theory, is sometimes imagined as being a separate field of enquiry from politics or political science. It is deceptively easy to think of theory as being divorced from reality, as dealing with utopian ideals rather than the real world of empirical facts. This distinction between facts and values was formulated by the nineteenth-century German sociologist Max Weber, who argued that social scientific analysis could never establish the truth of values or normative claims (Weber, 1946). Without disagreeing with Weber, we will see in the chapters that follow that political theory can help us to understand the principles and assumptions that underlie political arguments and claims, and also to see that the empirical world of politics looks very different from different theoretical perspectives. Our theoretical concepts and paradigms guide us in making political judgements, but they also help us to sort and make sense of the political world.

Introduction

Approaches to political theory

Political theory is as old as the study of politics itself; in fact, until the Enlightenment, scholars did not distinguish between the analytical description of politics and prescriptions for good government. Today, we distinguish between the study of past political thought as a strand in the history of ideas on the one hand, and contemporary political theory or philosophy on the other. This does not mean that contemporary theory does not make reference to the ideas of philosophers in the past; in this book we will often refer to the ideas of historical thinkers. But we will consider the arguments they raise, and the concepts they explain, not in their original historical context but, rather, as ideas and arguments that influence our own thinking today. (For a more detailed discussion of key thinkers in the history of political thought, see Morrow, 2005.) Contemporary political theory and here we include authors writing from the twentieth century onwards is often used to describe, as it has here, normative political theory. Normative theory is concerned with the way politics ought to work as a branch of practical philosophy it tells us what we ought to do. But political theory can also be used to mean empirical or descriptive theory. This usage of the term is closer to that intended by those who study, say, sociological or economic theory. Empirical or descriptive theory sets out to explain the way political phenomena work, by exploring the ideas that shape and structure political processes, institutions and practices. The division between these categories, as we shall see, is not always clear-cut. In the past two decades, European political and social theory has become more influential in the English-speaking world, and so we might add to our two categories critical theory, which pays particular attention to the way ideology and culture reflect and maintain hierarchies of power, and postmodernism, which examines what lies behind the apparently fundamental principles, values and structures of our political lives. (See Heywood, 2004, for a more detailed discussion of these schools of thinking.) Some lamented the death of political philosophy in the 1950s (Laslett, 1956) but, since the 1970s, political theorists have focused again on examining the ethical problems of public life, and normative theory has re-emerged as a vital field. This has meant a revival of interest in questions of justice, sparked largely by the publication of John Rawls A Theory of Justice in 1971. Rawls work makes a contribution to most of the debates that we consider in this book. It is important not to overstate the distinction between these sub-categories of political theory. Every normative theoretical framework rests upon and assumes an analysis of how the political system works, what constitutes human nature, and how individuals and groups behave in public life. Feminism, for example, incorporates both an analysis of gendered power

Applying Political Theory

relations, and a prescription for a more just and gender-equal society. Marxism comprises a critique of how economics and ideology function under capitalism, and a prescription for a more just and classless society. Both of these could also be described as critical theories, as they are concerned with the relationship between ideology and the exercise of social power. In this book, we will concentrate on normative political theory, because our aim is to see how theory can help us to answer the crucial questions about how our public lives together should be organized. Most of the chapters here begin with should, and are answered by considering different ideas about what is good and right. Normative political theory is concerned with the relations between individuals, groups and institutions in civil society and governments. It asks: How much power should the state have over individuals and groups? Where should the boundaries between public and private life be drawn? How should individuals and groups treat each other in their interactions? Normative political theory aims to identify, establish and defend principles and values that guide answers to these questions. We will mainly use the term political theory in this book, but most theorists and philosophers treat it as interchangeable with political philosophy. Distinctions are sometimes drawn between them, but these vary and, in fact, any real difference tends to reflect institutional factors, particularly the way that the discipline of politics or political science has developed as an academic discourse, rather than any fundamental difference in their concerns. The academic authors whom we will discuss generally come from the wider study of political science, in which case they tend to describe their work as political theory, or from philosophy, in which case they might refer to their work as political philosophy. However, they address the same problems, using the same theoretical concepts and frameworks (see pp. 610 and 1016). We will also discuss work by legal and social theorists, when they address political problems using the same normative concepts. So far, we have used the term political theory to describe a field of study. But it is also commonly used to refer to particular theories that establish frameworks linking normative values and explanatory concepts. Liberalism, conservatism, feminism and socialism are often referred to as political theories, though they are perhaps more often studied as ideologies that underpin and justify political movements and systems of government. Our primary interest here is in the way they operate as explanatory frameworks or paradigms systematically linking concepts and values. I outline these frameworks on pp. 1016. As we shall see, however, their boundaries are often not very clearly defined and, in many cases, there is considerable internal variation within each, and overlap between them.

Introduction

Liberalism is a case in point. As a theoretical framework of ideas, liberalism emerged in the late seventeenth century in response to religious pluralism, the development of capitalism and the modern state, and the idea of the individual. As a set of ideas, it has developed in many different directions over the subsequent three hundred years. In contemporary politics, liberalism might be associated with state regulation and intervention designed to achieve equality, or with laissez-faire free-market policies. It is impossible to pin down one liberal position on many issues, as we shall see in this book. Similarly, feminists might be found on either side, even with regard to issues that directly concern women, such as pornography and prostitution. The reason for this is that the values around which these frameworks centre can be interpreted in different ways. Liberalism, for example, is built around the key norm of individual freedom. But which freedom is more important: that of a person to do as he or she chooses with his or her own property, or that of someone to be able to develop his or her talents and achieve according to his or her potential? These freedoms are not necessarily compatible, as debates over redistribution show (Chapters 2 and 10). At the same time, theoretical frameworks do not take particular positions on all issues. They developed to address particular sets of questions, and are not always equipped to answer others. So, we find that Marxism, for example, does not address some contemporary social issues such as same-sex marriage or abortion, as these do not fit easily into the economic analysis with which it is primarily concerned. Other frameworks, such as liberalism, have developed to deal with a wider range of issues. For these reasons, this book does not focus on the theoretical frameworks themselves. We will refer to them, as they are relevant and helpful in organizing groups of thinkers on particular values, but with respect to some issues, such as humanitarian intervention, we will make only occasional reference to them. Our focus throughout will be on the concepts and values around which theoretical frameworks are organized. Because we are applying normative theory, to help us judge what we should do with respect to political problems, we will concentrate on political values: ideas about what is good, right and important in political life. The key values that appear in these chapters include liberty, autonomy, equality, justice, the role of the state, and the common good. These can all be interpreted in many ways, and the different interpretations of what they mean, and the different weights assigned to them, shape a range of theoretical frameworks. This book applies the values and theoretical frameworks of political theory to real world political issues. But we should remember that these concepts, values and frameworks emerged in the first place as a result of thinkers wrestling with these issues. Feminism developed because women confronted the reality of their subordination to men and this included issues such as abortion, prostitution and pornography. Liberalism developed

Applying Political Theory

because people were concerned about the power of a centralizing state over their freedom of speech and civil liberties. We aim here to shift the focus of these theoretical frameworks back to the real world problems out of which they emerged.

Normative concepts and values

Much of the debate over the issues we address in this book turns on different interpretations and weights assigned to some key values. We now look at these in more detail. The first two concepts we consider are very broad it is the subsequent, more specific values that provoke much of the controversy in normative political theory.

Justice
Justice is one of the oldest concepts in western political theory Platos Republic, written in the fourth century BCE (Plato, 1981), is an extended discussion of the question: What is justice? Aristotle divided the subject into corrective and distributive justice (Aristotle, 1981) the first is a matter for the criminal justice system, the second, for political philosophy. Justice also encompasses both the way individuals treat each other and the laws and institutions that structure society. In both these respects, justice is understood today as fairness. What makes a just society is one of the main concerns of normative political theory, and includes the principles by which social goods are distributed (distributive justice), and those that regulate the ways in which both state and individual citizens treat individuals and groups. All of the theoretical frameworks we refer to here address one, if not both of these categories. Justice is expressed or embodied in laws, in economic structures, and in social and political attitudes and practices.

Rights
Rights can be defined as our entitlements to act or to be treated in a particular way (Heywood, 2004). Individuals assert their rights against the state (these claims are often expressed as liberties) or against other people. Rights are derived from law (positive rights), or from claims to a higher authority, such as nature or God (natural rights). (We discuss the natural law tradition in Chapters 6 and 7.) Human rights are a modern and usually secular development of the idea of natural rights. The distinction between positive and natural rights maps onto one dealing with the scope of rights: positive rights are specific to particular political communities, while natural rights apply to all universally. (We consider questions of the scope

Introduction

of universal rights in Chapter 7, on abortion, and Chapter 12, on justice for future generations.)

Liberty and autonomy

Political theory is concerned with the liberty or freedom of individuals from state action, and in relation to other people. Liberty is an ancient concept, and individual freedom has been a fundamental concern of liberal political philosophy since seventeenth- and eighteenth-century theorists first explicitly defended individual freedoms against the state and the Church. The twentieth-century political philosopher Isaiah Berlin (Berlin, 1969) distinguished two different forms of liberty: negative liberty and positive liberty. Negative liberty refers to the freedom of individuals from restraints usually the laws of the state, but including the pressures of public opinion. Positive liberty refers to the freedom of individuals to develop their capacities, to act autonomously that is, under no ones direction but their own and to maximize their individual potential. Positive liberty includes our freedom to participate in making our own laws, and to govern ourselves. Autonomy here means literally self-rule, and refers to peoples abilities to make their own decisions and shape their own lives. Autonomy entails positive liberty, but we might also argue that it requires a range of options to choose from, a range provided by the intact cultural context in which individuals are embedded (see Chapter 3). Autonomy may also apply to whole societies, in which case it is bound up with the concept of sovereignty (see Chapter 11). Certain more recent philosophers have suggested that Berlins distinction between positive and negative liberty is an artificial one, as all liberties imply that one must be free of some restraint, in order to do or become something (Swift, 2001). Nevertheless, as we shall see, many of the debates over policy that we consider in this book involve different interpretations of liberty: some focusing on law as a restraint, and others on the way state action allows people to exercise their autonomy. All the theoretical frameworks we discuss here share a concern for liberty, but they differ with respect to the relationship they prescribe between individual liberty and other values. Feminists, for example, think that individual liberty must be assessed in the context of a social, cultural and economic system that systematically represents male interests and privileges men. Libertarians, or classical liberals, see individual negative liberty as the determining value in politics. It is important to note that whichever conception of liberty is used, no political theory defends absolute liberty for individuals it must, at a minimum, be compatible with the liberties of others. But there is a wide range of views among political theorists on whether and how much liberty should be restricted to allow for other social goods, such as national security or equality.

Applying Political Theory

Equality
As with liberty, equality is an idea that is fundamental to modern political theory. It emerged with the Enlightenment reaction to the structuring of society on hierarchical lines. Modern liberal democracies all embrace equality before the law and at least, in positive legal terms equal liberties and equal rights for all. Some liberals argue that the state is required only to go this far to enshrine equal liberties and rights in law. Any subsequent inequalities, they conclude, are due to the natural inequalities between different peoples talents and abilities. Others have been more concerned with the way in which equal treatment by law affects people differently as a result of other social, economic and cultural circumstances. As Anatole France remarked: The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal their bread (France, 1910). Egalitarian thinkers emphasize equality of opportunity, and the need to ensure that circumstances outside their control do not prevent people from taking opportunities. This second approach recognizes that laws are not the only impediments to equality; structures of social, economic and cultural power are also influential. Feminists argue that the system of patriarchy prevents women from being equal, even if they are assured equality before the law. In the United States, African Americans were assured formal constitutional equality under segregation, but the doctrine of separate but equal clearly did not grant them equality with the white population. Economic equality or equality of resources introduces more complications. Marxism and socialism are often seen as egalitarian philosophies but, in fact, Marx does not argue that resources should be distributed to everyone equally rather, they should be owned in common and apportioned in accordance with peoples needs. This raises a question for all egalitarian theoretical frameworks: Does equal mean the same? Does it require all people to be treated in the same way? In practice, equal treatment could result in very unequal outcomes. Two state pensions of the same amount paid to different people, one of whom is healthy and able-bodied, and the other is chronically ill with a disease that is expensive to treat, will produce inequality between them. Aristotle famously wrote in the fourth century BCE that like people should be treated alike, or equally (Aristotle, 1981) but this merely begs the question: How do we determine whether people are alike? In any case, equality must be balanced with other political values, particularly liberty. Should individual freedom be limited in order to ensure that all are equal, however this is defined? This tension is one of the most important in modern political theory, and we will see it demonstrated in several of the issues we consider in this book.

Introduction

Private property
As with liberty and equality, private property emerged as a key political value in the seventeenth century. Before then, philosophers believed that economic relations and the accumulation and distribution of wealth should be subordinated to the moral and ethical purposes of government. But capitalism and classical liberalism are based upon the right of individuals to private property, and later versions of liberalism, Marxism and socialism are structured around the question of how to balance rights to private property with equality, with positive liberty and autonomy, and with the common good. We discuss this in Chapter 2, where we ask: Can the state take property and redistribute it to others in need? Are collective purposes more important than the right of individuals to their property? Does such a right exist independently of the social good? Marxism argues that private property reflects and perpetuates fundamental inequality in the economic system. It has no inherent value.

The common good

Students of politics have seen human beings as fundamentally social creatures since Aristotle described us as political animals (Aristotle, 1981). Human beings cannot live the kind of lives for which they are meant good lives outside of society. But some important modern political thinking juxtaposes the interests of individuals to the common good. Classical liberals argue that if a conflict should arise between the claims of the community and the rights of the individual, the latter must prevail. They define communities as aggregates of individuals, which do have moral value in themselves. Others have followed the argument of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the eighteenth century, that the rights and freedoms of the individual are compatible with the higher common good (Rousseau, 1973 [1762]). The situation becomes more complex when we consider the nature of the relevant community. We must decide whether we mean to take into account the good of the nation-state community, or sub-state communities such as racial or ethnic groups, or whether we should take into account the good of the worlds population as a whole. National society in liberal democracies is often seen as a scheme of shared cooperation, which generates mutual obligations among citizens. We must then ask ourselves: What are our obligations across state borders to those in need? Do these moral obligations stem from our shared nature as human beings,

10

Applying Political Theory

or do they stem from the relationships of reciprocity that exist within national borders? What are the implications of sub-state national communities for these?

Sovereignty
Considerations of the common good inevitably raise questions about the role of governments in representing and protecting that good. The fundamental normative justification of government is the protection of citizens, and the pursuit of their interests and goods. But this obligation must be considered in the context of the principle of sovereignty. The modern concept of sovereignty developed in Europe in the sixteenth century, as central governments consolidated their power as against other groups and institutions in society, such as the Church and the aristocracy, and asserted their sole right to rule. As the sovereignty of governments within states became established, it simultaneously extended outwards, coming to refer also to the right of states to be free from external interference. When the state fails in its obligations to its citizens, however, can other states intervene to protect them? As states have consolidated authority and control over national populations in the modern period, the international system has developed as a system of sovereign states, which claim the right to manage their own internal affairs without the interference or guidance of others. The principle of state sovereignty is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which provides that states are allowed to use violence against others only in self-defence. But, as we see in Chapter 11, when governments turn on their own citizens, or fail to protect them, some argue that they are no longer entitled to the protections of sovereignty.

Theoretical paradigms and frameworks

As we have seen, theoretical frameworks and paradigms are constructed as philosophers, in order to explain and legitimize political action, link together particular interpretations and combinations of values. These include liberalism, conservatism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism. Some theoretical frameworks are not specifically political but, rather, explain human action on a private moral level as well. An example here is utilitarianism, which is a normative theory designed to guide private ethical, as well as public just, behaviour. Others focus on a specific issue, and are often combined with the frameworks or ideologies listed above; these include nationalism and cosmopolitanism. Although these theoretical frameworks do not line up neatly on all of the issues we deal with in this book, they can offer useful ways of grouping different theorists. What is

Introduction

11

more, they often figure in real-world political debates, so it is important that we are aware of their broad outlines. What follows is a brief sketch of the most important features of these frameworks. For more details, see Heywood, 2004.

Liberalism
Liberalism, the ideology that describes and legitimizes liberal democratic government, is hegemonic in the world today, and has been since the collapse of the Soviet Union and most socialist systems in the early 1990s. As a theoretical framework, liberalism emerged with modernity in Europe around the seventeenth century, associated with the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the emergence of Protestantism and the separation of religious from secular authority. Liberalism takes the moral value of each individual human being to be equal and irreducible, and its chief aim, in all of its varieties, is to protect individuals against threats to them from other people, from social groups and from the state. At its inception, liberalism was associated with a limited state and government by consent; concerns about state power are still powerful among liberals, as we see in several of the chapters in this book, especially Chapter 9. Classical liberalism and its modern variant, libertarianism is primarily concerned with defending the freedom of individuals against the reach of the law: or negative liberty (see p. 7). But, since the nineteenth century, liberalism has also focused on positive liberty: enabling human beings to live free and autonomous lives, despite social and economic circumstances that might limit them. This has meant a greater role for the state, and explains why in popular political debate, particularly in the United States, liberal refers to someone who defends state intervention and activism to ensure equality of opportunity. In some cases (see Chapters 4 and 8), liberals support state action to protect people from the powerful and damaging opinions of other people. Liberalism is usually seen as defending individuals against groups, but liberals do not always see groups in negative terms. Modern multiculturalist liberals argue that because group membership has an important impact on individual identity and self-respect, minority groups should be given some protection not because they have value in themselves, but because they have value, ultimately, to their members. Liberalism has become the dominant theoretical framework for political philosophers writing in English, and has absorbed many of the arguments of its critics, such as socialists, feminists and communitarians. Many of the debates that we examine in this book take place within liberalism, as well as between it and its critics.

12

Applying Political Theory

Communitarianism
Communitarianism developed as a theoretical framework in the 1980s, and posed a significant normative challenge to liberalism. Communitarians criticized liberalisms emphasis on individual rights, and what they saw as its atomistic view of the individual detached from any communal or social context. Because liberalisms ontology of the person its view of what a person is was mistaken, communitarians concluded, so was its view of how politics and government should be managed. Communitarians see each individual as embedded in a social context, consisting of a network of social relations including the institutions that make up society; such as the family, ethnic groups, religious communities and shared norms and values. Some communitarians focus on the need to reinforce the associations and organizations of civil society, rather than the state. Others emphasize the importance of considering societys moral values when weighing up political issues, rather than merely analysing them in terms of individual rights. Many liberals have rejected the communitarian charge that they assume that individuals are disconnected and separated, pointing out that such ties are important to individual identity, but that they must separated from the public principles that guide cooperation and public debate. Communitarians often assume that the relevant community is that of the nation-state, but this perspective has also influenced multiculturalist theorists, who emphasize the importance of cultural community for the individual, and the need to protect minority ethnic and national communities.

Marxism and socialism

Marxism is a theoretical framework based on the ideas of nineteenth-century theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx analysed the development of societies in economic terms, and developed an argument that history progresses because of material factors: the way in which the economy is organized, the power structures that make it run, and the relations of social groups to each other on this power structure. (For more details, see Heywood, 2004.) Marx argues that history progresses forward as the internal contradictions within each system of production are revealed. Capitalism is the penultimate stage of economic development, and Marx thought that, as workers gained consciousness of themselves and their exploitation under capitalism, they would unite in revolution and capitalism would be replaced by socialism. Wealth would be earned by people using their abilities, and distributed to everyone on the basis of their need. Since it is the economic system that drives society and determines its progress, Marx thought that factors such as ideas, moral and religious prin-

Introduction

13

ciples which he described as ideology are superstructural, which means that they reflect what is going on in economic relations, rather than causing it. Marxism as a prescriptive theory of history, advocating and predicting a revolution of the workers, has very little relevance and support now, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union and communist states. (We should, however, also record that many leftist theorists argue that there was little correspondence between Marxs ideas and the state-run socialism that existed in the Soviet Union and its allies.) Even socialism, its more recent democratic heir, has become marginal in public political debate, as labour and social democratic parties in liberal democracies have abandoned the principle of state ownership. But other aspects of Marxs thoughts have been very influential, particularly his critique of ideology (meaning the ideas that legitimize a system of unequal economic power). Many feminists have adopted the Marxist critique of ideology but, rather than capitalism, they focus on patriarchy, the social system that assigns power and status to men, and subordinates women. (Socialist feminists believe that patriarchy is inherently related to capitalism.) Some theorists have combined the liberal focus on individual freedom and participation in self-government with a Marxist critique of ideology. However, when we look at debates about economic inequality (which we cover in Chapters 2 and 10 of this book) we see that most of the debate about redistribution is conducted not by Marxists or socialists but, rather, by liberals, who focus less on the elimination of capitalism and the full social ownership of the means of production, and much more on how the products of the system are distributed. In the Marxist model, distribution can be solved only after ownership of the means of production is changed.

Feminism
Feminism, now, includes such a diverse set of views that theorists often speak of feminisms but, nevertheless, all feminism shares the fundamental commitment to achieving equality for women and to ending their subordination legal, political, economic and social to men. It requires no specific theory of how the economy should be organized, and there are liberal feminists and socialist feminists, as well as radical feminists who argue that patriarchy is trans-cultural and trans-historical, the primary form of human exploitation, and must be overcome before any other social change is possible. Feminism is a social movement as well as a system of ideas, and it has been particularly concerned with the relationship between theory and practice feminists argue that theory should emerge out of womens critical reflections upon their own experiences of inequality. Feminism, as a movement, arose first in the nineteenth century (in the

14

Applying Political Theory

first wave), as groups of middle-class women became active in the suffrage movement, struggling to secure the right to vote. Second wave feminism emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, and focused on equal rights defined by liberals as legal and political, and by socialists and by radicals as social and economic. Feminisms concern with equal rights places it in the liberal tradition and, on many social issues that involve justice for women, feminists line up with liberals. But feminists have also been influenced by the Marxist critique of ideology, and many look more deeply at the way our social and cultural ideas and practices perpetuate inequality. We will see this in the debate over pornography in Chapter 5. One of the major contributions of feminism to normative theory is that it reminds us of how inequality is perpetuated in the private sphere in the family and domestic life. Previously, political theory had analysed status and power as it is exercised in the public sphere of politics, or in the economy and social life. Politics was assumed to exclude private life. Feminism reminds us to analyse as political any sphere of human life in which some people systematically exercise power over others.

Conservatism
Conservatism is more difficult to define and demarcate than many other theoretical frameworks. As is the case with liberalism, the way the term is used in everyday political debate is often distinct from its meaning as a theoretical framework. The positions often identified in politics as conservative are sometimes better seen as libertarian or liberal in a classical sense: respect for private property and support for a limited state with less government regulation in both the economy and peoples private, moral and social conduct. Views that oppose regulation of the economy, but support state regulation of private behaviour and enforce moral views, are more likely to be influenced by conservatism. As a theoretical framework and a political movement, conservatism developed in response to radical and revolutionary movements and ideas that emerged in the eighteenth century and were embodied in the French Revolution. Conservatives, noting with alarm the wholesale change that radicals advocated, and the bloody course of the Revolution, rejected attempts to change social institutions and fundamental ideas and traditions based on abstract ideas. Conservatives argue that established social institutions deserve respect and protection because of the role they play in meeting human needs. They should not be abolished, changed or reformed in the light of abstract and utopian ideals. This view is behind much of the opposition to social change, such as same-sex marriage. Conservative views sometimes coincide with those of communitarians, as both schools of thought emphasize the need to protect common social institutions that shape and give meaning to peoples lives.

Introduction

15

This strand of conservative thinking is secular, although it incorporates respect for religious institutions. Christian conservatives, who take part in philosophical debates over social and moral issues, rely on the idea of natural law. They argue that traditional social and moral beliefs reflect Gods law, as it is revealed in the natural order of things and in each human conscience. This kind of social conservatism combines with economic liberalism to form the policies of the New Right.

Nationalism
Nationalism can also be described as a theoretical framework, an ideology and a social movement; unlike the other paradigms we have considered, however, it does not specify any particular organization of the national political or economic system. Nationalists might be liberals, socialists, conservatives or feminists, or a combination of these. We can distinguish here between ethnic nationalism, which views the nation as a community of people linked together in communities of fate by ethnic, racial or kinship ties, and civic nationalism, which views the nation as a community made up of those who choose to commit to a common public life together, and to public institutions and principles. While these two forms of nationalism are based on different conceptions of the person, both justify normative commitments for citizens: nationalism assumes that we are at least to some degree fundamentally defined by membership in our nation, which binds us together with ties of sentiment and mutual obligation. It is similar here to communitarianism, with the important proviso that the communitarians do not necessarily see national communities as the only or most important ones in which people are embedded. It follows from nationalism that we have only limited duties to others outside national borders, whether to redistribute resources, and to go to war to protect them if their governments fail to do so (see Chapters 10 and 11).

Cosmopolitanism
In contrast with nationalism, cosmopolitanism is based on the principle that all human beings belong to a universal community, because of our common humanity. All people have equal moral status, which means that we must give full weight to the needs and interests of those outside our national or local communities. Cosmopolitanism is not a modern idea; it dates from ancient Greece and Rome, and was a key belief of the Stoic philosophers, in the third century BCE, and the early Christians. In its modern form, cosmopolitanism is associated with universal human rights, and with the challenge to nationalism. Cosmopolitans argue that those in wealthy countries have a duty to redistribute resources to meet the basic needs of the poor

16

Applying Political Theory

in other nations (Chapter 10), and that those who can prevent human rights abuses in other countries must intervene, if possible, to do so (Chapter 11). As with nationalism, cosmopolitanism does not imply any particular economic or political arrangements within states (classical liberalism and Marxism both have cosmopolitan elements) but, in modern thinking, it has been closely associated with liberalism, because of the liberal belief in the equal moral status of all individuals.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a philosophical tradition that argues that we should judge the worth of an action, a regulation, or a policy by how much it contributes to utility defined variously as happiness, good, satisfaction or welfare. Actions, whether individual or governmental, are assessed in terms of their consequences, rather than by whether they conform to abstract moral principles or ideas. Unlike the other frameworks we have considered here, utilitarianism is primarily ethical: it covers all human action, and includes no specific provision for how political or economic life should be structured; it assumes that any political or economic system should be judged by how much it contributes to human happiness or welfare. Utilitarianism is not an ideology, neither is it the creed of a social movement, but it permeates our thinking on every political issue. In this book, we will consider utilitarian thinking about the consequences of policy and legislation on both sides of all the questions we discuss. In contrast to the utilitarian approach, we will also consider deontological arguments. Deontological thinking evaluates policy and legislation according to whether they conform to moral and ethical principles, rather than on the basis of the consequences they produce. It is an approach to ethics, rather than an ideology, and does not prescribe particular moral or political principles.

The structure of this book

The chapters in this book address a range of political issues that are active and controversial in modern liberal democracies. While they have moral dimensions, all have been the subject of government regulation and policy, and we will examine them as distinctively political problems: those that concern our public lives together as individuals and members of social communities and nations, and as the subjects of state power. We begin in Chapter 2 by looking at the distribution of resources within states, and then turn to the status of minority groups in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 continue the examination of controversial social issues with special impli-

Introduction

17

cations for women, gays and lesbians, as well as the role of state in regulating the beginning and end of life. In Chapters 8 and 9 we look at the relationship between the state and civil liberties. Chapters 10 and 11 deal with global issues: the distribution of resources to those in poor countries, and whether or not to intervene to protect human rights abuses. Finally, Chapter 12 examines our obligations to save and protect resources for future generations. Each chapter begins with a short survey of the issues and of the ways in which governments in liberal democracies have responded to them by legislation, regulation and policy. Then we turn to political theory to analyse the arguments relating to each issue. We examine the key concepts and values that underlie these arguments, where they come into conflict, and where they share common ground. It is not the purpose of this book to advocate one position or another on these issues; however, it does aim to help readers to understand what is really at stake in the arguments over such issues, and to become familiar with the concepts and values of normative political theory, so that they can go on to apply them to the full range of questions that we confront as citizens and students of politics.

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 269

Index
A (FC) and others (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, House of Lords decision in, 174 Aboriginal rights, 43, 55 see also indigenous groups Abortion, 1, 12741, 14950 regulation of, 12732 Abortion Act, The (UK), 129 Ackerman, Bruce, 1812 Affirmative action, 2, 25, 6585 and efficiency, 8 and equality, 6985 and individual rights, 73, 82 and intelligence, 81 and positive action, 67 and positive discrimination, 66; see also weak and strong affirmative action below and preferential treatment, 71, 72, 74, 78, 80 and protective discrimination, 69 and quotas, 65, 66, 6972 University of Michigan cases, 67 weak and strong affirmative action, 701, 72, 75 Afghanistan, 212, 229 African Americans, 8, 56, 74, 76, 77 African Union, The, 213, 221 AIDS, 114 Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland, House of Lords decision in, 143, 148 Al Qaida, 175 American Civil Liberties Union, 172 Amish, the, 45 Anan, Kofi, UN Secretary General, 21314, 232 Anderson, Elizabeth, 356, 76, 78, 945 and democratic equality, 36 Anthropocentricism, 236, 239 Anti-Terrorism Act (Australia), 176 Anti-Terrorist Act (CAN), 176 Appiah, Anthony (b. 1954), 51 Aquinas, Thomas, 91, 223 Aristotle, 6, 115, 128 Assimilation, see integration versus assimilation Augustine of Hippo, 223 Autonomy ( see also liberty) , 5, 7, 9, 227, 33, 37, 39, 41, 456, 514, 578, 60, 624, 78, 101, 1045, 11819, 130, 137, 140, 1447, 14951, 15961, 163, 169, 183, 208, 220, 222, 249 and choice, 92105, 112, 120 and cultural rights, 4864 Baehr v. Lewin, Supreme Court of Hawaii decision in, 111 Bakke, Regents of California v., US Supreme Court decision in, 66 Ball, Carlos, 118 Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General, 234 Barber, Benjamin, 179, 188 Barry, Brian, 5960, 23941, 249 Barry, Kathleen, 100 Basic Income, 26, 37, 207 Basic Law, German, 153 Beauchamp, Tom, 150 Beauharnais v. Illinois, US Supreme Court decision in, 156 Beckerman, Wilfred, 249 Beckwith, Francis, 139 Beitz, Charles, 2025, 208, 222, 226 Bentham, Jeremy, 58, 179, 238 Berlin, Isaiah, 7, 113 Biculturalism, 46 Birmingham pub bombings, 173 Bismarck, Otto Eduard Leopold von, 18 Blair, Tony, 45 the Blair Doctrine, 212, 215 Blake, William, 230 Bodin, Jean, 21718, 224 Bosnia, 21112

269

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 270

270

Index
Colonialism, 51 see also internal colonization Common good, the, 9, 47, 5863, 102, 106, 119, 124, 1646, 169 Communitarianism, 10, 12 and abortion, 132, 139, 140 and affirmative action, 73, 82 and environmental conservation, 235, 237, 2434 and euthanasia, 147 and liberty, 39 and same-sex marriage, 11921 and the sex industry, 903, 107 and speech, 1648 and terrorism, 179 and welfare, 21, 38, 40 Communities of fate and communities of choice, 42 Conference on the Human Environment, UN, 231 Consequentialist arguments, 71, 737, 85, 91, 96, 114, 119, 1589, 177, 188, 189, 216, 225 Conservatism, also conservative political ideology, 1415 (definition), 22, 26, 33, and abortion, 134, 139, 140, 148 and same-sex marriage, 1213 and the sex industry, 912 and welfare, 22, 26, 33 Conservative Party, the British, 20 Contract, freedom of, 78, 79, 83, 91, 101, 11315, 118 Contract theory, 23 see also social contract Convention on Biological Diversity, 231 Convention on Climate Change, UN Framework, 233 Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), International, 153, 156 Convention on Human Rights, European (ECHR), 174, 175, 179, 185 Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Council of Europe, 174 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European, 153, 163

Boumediene v. Bush, US Supreme Court decision in, 173 Brandenburg v. Ohio, US Supreme Court decision in, 156 Brinkley, Alan, 188 Brock, Gillian, 226, 228 Brown, Gordon, 20 Brundtland Report, 231, 250 Buchannan, Alan, 203 Burke, Edmund, 22, 122, 244 Bush, George W., 19, 26, 131, 144, 184 Butler, see R. v. Butler Carens, Joseph, 27 Carson, Rachael, 2301 Caney, Simon, 195, 224, 225 Catch the Fire Ministries, 156 Censorship, 91, 99107 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, US Supreme Court decision in, 156 Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CAN), 68, 89, 155, 176 Christianity, 51, 128, 142, 147, 152, 155, 156, 166 and natural law, 91 Churchill, Winston, 21 Cicero, 223 Citizens, citizenship, 10, 18, 20, 23, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46, 53, 58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 72, 82, 109, 113, 11621, 1623, 169, 1714, 1778, 1808, 191, 193, 1956, 199200, 2023, 2056 Civic republicanism, 120 Civil liberties, 1, 6, 17, 153, 158, 166, 167, 17188, Civil Partnerships Act (UK), 10910 Civil Rights Act (US), 656 Civil Rights Movement (US), 65 Civil society, 4, 12, 213, 3940, 767, 109, 115, 198200, 219 Civil unions, 10912, 119, 1245 Civil War, American, 66 Climate change, 2334, 245, 249 Clinton, Bill, 19, 111, 212 Cohen, Carl, 82 Cohen, Gerald, 35 Cohen, Joshua, 104

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 271

Index
Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 232 Convention on the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, UN, 86 Cosmopolitanism, 10, 1516, 50, 216, 223, 225, 228 Counter Terrorism Bill (UK), 174 COYOTE, 105 Crawford, Neta, 222 Critical theory, 3 Cruzan v. Director Missouri Department of Health, US Supreme Court decision in, 143, 146, 148 Cultural imperialism, 62 Darfur, see Sudan Death with Dignity Act (State of Oregon), 144 Declaration on Human Rights, UN, 153, 224 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN, 46 Defense of Marriage Act (US), 111 Deontological arguments, 16, 71, 78, 85, 91, 96, 114, 1589, 195, 215 Depression, the Great, 18 Dershowitz, Alan, 183 Descriptive theory, also empirical theory, 3 De-Shalit, Avner, 242 Development Assistance Committee, The OECD, 192 Devlin, Patrick Baron, Lord Justice, 93, 1201 Disabilities, 34 Discrimination, see affirmative action Diversity, 679, 73, 767, 82, 84 Diversity Charter (FR), 68 Dobson, Andrew, 242, 245 Domestic partnerships, see civil unions Dryzek, John, 237 Dworkin, Andrea, 97 Dworkin, Ronald , 325, 72, 73, 99, 101, 103, 116, 1356, 140, 145, 146, 147, 151, 162, 181, 1845, 187, 199,

271

and brute and option luck, 32, 34, 36 and ethical individualism, 33 Earth Summit, 231 Eckersley, Robyn, 244 Ecofeminism, see feminism and environmental conservation Egalitarianism, 2241 and abortion, 140, 149 and environmental conservation, 235, 2407 and euthanasia, 149 and foreign aid, 196, 198, 2012, 208 and free choice, 367 and liberalism, 27, 32, 37, 60, 81 and luck, 32, 35, 367 and speech, 152, 158, 162 Elliot, Robert, 245 Elshtain, Jean Bethke, 59, 179, 188 Engels, Friedrich ( see also Marx, Karl, Marxism), 12, 60, 946, 115, 1235 Environment, the, 33, 36, 198, 23050 Equality, 8, 38, 63, 91, 96, 100, 103, 106, 10910, 114, 116, 1245, 187 Erdrich, Louise, 55 Ericsson, Lars, 102 Essentialism, biological, 84 Ethics of care, see feminism Empirical theory, see descriptive theory Euthanasia, 2, 127, 132, 14251 Fabre, Cecile, 244 Facts and values, distinction between, 23 False consciousness, 60, 956 Feinberg, Joel, 2423 Feminism, 34, 5, 8, 1314, 37, 95 and abortion, 13740, 1478 and choice, 378, 100105 and environmental conservation, 237 and the ethics of care, 3740, 237 and euthanasia, 148 and marriage, 117 and minority cultural rights, 603

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 272

272

Index
High Level Panel for Financing and Development, 191 Hirst, Paul, 42 History of ideas, the, 3 Hitler, Adolf, 205, 209 Hobbes, Thomas, 23, 103, 113, 118, 133, 1789, 181, 199, 21718, 219, 224 Holbrooke, Richard, 212 Holocaust denial, 165 Homosexuality, 88, 92, 93, 101, 104, 10926 Human capabilities 357, 3940, 49, 105, 118, 195 Human rights, 195, 197, 198, 200, 208 Human Rights Act (NZ), 68, 155 Humanitarian Law Project, et al. v. Gonzalez, US Court of Appeals decision in, 173 Hume, David, 178, 246 Hussein, Saddam, 209 Identity, 73, 76, 7880 Identity politics, 42 Ignatieff, Michael, 182 Immigration, and immigrant, 42, 4856, 61, 77 Indigenous groups, 42, 45 and other minority cultures, 49 self-determination of, also selfgovernment, 42, 457, 53, 55, 60, see also societal cultures and immigrant groups Indigenous languages, 534 Integration, versus assimilation, 4, 56 Intelligence Reform Act (US), 173 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 233 Internal colonization, 58 International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, United Nations, 46 International Convention on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), 209, 214, 215, 222, 224 International Prostitutes Collective, 105 Interpersonal comparisons, the problem of, 33

Feminism (cont.) and same-sex marriage, 11718 and the sex industry, 86, 90, 92100, 1027 pro-sex feminism, 104 and sex-selection, 130 Finnis, John, 147 First Amendment to the US Constitution, 156, 163 First nations, 45, 55 Fish, Stanley, 165 Fiss, Owen, 163 Foreign aid, 189208 Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, 66, 120, 131, 146 Fraser, Nancy, 60 Freedom, see liberty Freeman, Samuel, 200 Genocide Convention (1948), 216 Gilligan, Carol, 136 Gitlin, Todd, 60 Glendon, Mary Ann, 134, 140 Global Resources Dividend (GRD), 205 Global warming, 33, 2323, 2404, 247 Globalization, 107, 200, 203 Goldman, Alan, 7980, 81 Gonzales v. Carhart, US Supreme court decision in, 131 Goodin, Robert, 181, 240 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, Supreme Court of Massachusetts decision in, 111 Greenawalt, Ken, 161 Grisez, Germain, 133 Grotius, Hugo, 223 Habeas corpus, 1, 173, 174 Habermas, Jurgen, 21 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, US Supreme Court decision in, 173 Hamilton, Alexander, 179 Harris, John, 145 Hart, H.L.A, 120 Hayek, Friedrich August von, 23, 186 Heilbroner, Robert, 247 Herder, Johann Gottfried, 52

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 273

Index
Intervention, humanitarian, 195, 198, 205 Inuit, see first Nations Irish Republican Army (IRA), 173 Irving, David, 153 Islam, also Muslims, 43, 44, 75, 91, 1523, 154, 155, 156, 166, 167, 170, 175, 212 Johnson, Lyndon Baines, 65, 72 Just War theory, 212, 214, 216, 2226, 228 Justice, 3, 6, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30, 3641, 47, 7185, 110, 11520, 122, 124, 110, 11519, 122, 124, 175, 178, 179, 195207, 230, 2347, 23950 Kant, Immanuel, 79, 147, 150, 159, 160, 184, 186, 2245, 238 Kennedy, John Fitzgerald, 65 Komeini, The Ayatollah, 155 Korematsu v. United States, Supreme Court decision in, 183 Kosovo, 21012, 221 Kristol, Irving, 92 Kukathas, Chandran, 48, 201, 208 Kymlicka, Will, 538, 612 Kyoto Protocol, 234, 240 Lawrence v. Texas, US Supreme Court decision in, 120 Liberalism, 5, 56, 11, 113, 224 and abortion, 130, 132, 134, 137, 140, 141 and affirmative action, 713, 76, 7882 and cosmopolitanism, 216 and cultural groups, 4857, 601 and environmental conservation, 245, 247 and euthanasia, 1446, 149, 150 and foreign aid, 1978, 208 and individual freedom, 47, 534, 73 military intervention, 209, 21619, 224 and multiculturalism, 11, 48, 78, 118

273

and same-sex marriage, 113, 11525 and the sex industry, 902, 95107 and sex-selection, 130 and speech, 1523, 156, 15960, 162, 1646, 169170 and terrorism, 171, 1734, 1778, 1801, 1847 and welfare, 22, 267, 3840 see also egalitarianism and liberalism Libertarianism, 7, 11, 14 and abortion, 1334, 137, 149 and affirmative action, 745, 79, 81 and environmental conservation, 235, 245 and foreign aid, 201, 206, 207 and multiculturalism, 489, 63 and same-sex marriage, 113115, 121 and the sex industry, 101, 103 and speech, 158161 and terrorism, 1834 and welfare, 23, 26, 37, 63 Liberty, also freedom, 59, 11, 13, 223, 259, 32, 36, 389, 4751, 53, 5760, 624, 65, 74, 789, 83, 86, 8992, 94107, 11315, 118, 123, 125, 1301, 142, 1446, 149, 15288, 195, 1978, 201, 206, 208, 214, 220, 226 negative and positive, 7, 11, 113 and security, 1, 172, 174, 17787 Little, Margaret, 137 Locke, John, 23, 48, 147, 150, 180, 181, 186, 205, 207, 238, 245 London Bombings, 7 July 2005, 174 Luban, David, 176 Luck egalitarianism, 32, 36 Luther, Martin, 217 Mabo v. Queensland, Australian High Court decision in, 45 Machiavelli, Niccolo, 217 Mackinnon, Catharine, 97100, 103, 105, 140, 166, 16870 Mandela, Nelson, 189 Maori, 46, 58, 64, 689 Marquis, Don, 133 Marschall decision in, European Court of Justice, 68

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 274

274

Index
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, US Supreme Court decision in, 156, 161 Nation-state, the, 12, 216, 222, 227, Native Americans, 45, 55 see also indigenous groups and first nations NATO, 210, 212 Natural law, 6, 91, 121, 133, 147, 149 see also Christianity Neocleous, Mark, 1867 New Economic Policy (Malaysia), 69 Nixon, Richard Milhouse, 66 Normative theory, 12, 3, 610 Nozick, Robert (19382002), 236, 28, 30, 37, 39, 40, 74, 79, 102, 1334, 146, 184, 200201, 207, 245 and the Lockean proviso, 25 Nussbaum, Martha, 36, 49, 94, 102, 105, 118, 195 and core capabilities, 36 Nunavut, 45 Obligations, moral, 9 Okin, Susan Moller, 37, 601, 117 One Nation Party, 43 Ontology, and ontological questions, 132, 134, 137, 164 Operation Allied Force, 20911 Parekh, Bhikhu Chotalal, Baron, 578, 64, 222 Parfit, Derek, 243 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (US), 131 Pasek, Joanna, 249 Patemen, Carole, 100 Patriot Act, The United States, 1713, 176, 182 Peace of Westphalia, 217 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996), 19 Personhood, 1346 Philips, Anne, 61, 62 Piscataway Board of Education v. Taxman, US Court of Appeals decision in, 70

Margalit, Avishai, 52 Marriage, 2 forced, 43 and prostitution, 95, 104 and homosexuality, 10926 Marx, Karl, 8, 1213, 21, 27, 356, 60, 946, 105, 115, 125, 166, 225, 238 Marxism, also Marxist, 4, 5, 9, 1213, 16, 38, 60, 946, 98, 105, 123, 161, 230, and marriage, 115, 1235 and multiculturalism, 60 and redistribution, 27, 35 and speech, 161, 166 McElroy, Wendy, 104 Meese, Edwin, 92 Meiklejohn, Alexander, 163 Meisels, Tamar, 181 Metis, see first nations Mill, John Stuart, 75, 101, 113, 116, 118, 141, 159, 162, 170, 181, 209, 21920, 225, 230 Millennium Development goals, 194 Miller, David, 59, 194, 200, 202, 247 Miller v. California, US Supreme Court decision in, 89 Milosevic, Slobodan, 210 Milton, John, 155 Minorities, 2, 423, 4550, 52, 558, 61, 638, 70, 724, 7680, 823, 85, 130 Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron de, 52 Montreal Protocol, see Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna Momaday, N. Scott, 55 Multiculturalism, 423, 478, 53, 5960, 156, 165, 170, Mulvey, Laura, 100 Nagel, Thomas, 80, 146, 199 Nardin, Terry, 218, 220 National identity and environmental conservation, 243 and foreign aid, 195, 199, 202, 206 Nationalism, 10, 15, 523, 55, 59

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 275

Index
Plato, 6, 128 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, US Supreme Court decision in, 131, 136 Plumbwood, Val, 236 Pogge, Thomas, 2045, 2078 Political philosophy and political theory, 3 politics of displacement, the, 59 Posner, Richard, 114, 17980 Post, Robert, 162 Pornography, 2, 86107, 153 regulation of, 8990 Postmodernism, 3 Pretty, Diane, 143 Prevention of Terrorism Act (UK), 173, 174 Private property, 9, 235, 38, 194, 204, 245 Private sphere, see public and private spheres Proposition 8, California, 111 Prostitution, 2, 86107 regulation of, 869 Public and private spheres, 48, 62, 101, 113 Public expression, see speech, freedom of Public Order Act (UK), 155 Quebec, 45 R. v. Butler, Canadian Supreme Court decision in, 90, 99 R. v. Keegstra, Canadian Supreme Court decision in, 155, 165, 166 Race Relations Act (UK) 66, 155 Racial and Religious Hatred Act (UK), 155 Racial and Religious Tolerance Act (Victoria), 156 Rachels, James, 146 Raffarin, Jean-Pierre, 20 Ratzinger, Joseph, Pope Benedict XVI, 111 Rawls, John, 3, 48, 72, 77, 87, 101, 103, 11617, 118, 122, 141, 146, 160, 177, 185, 196, 219, 221, 226, 239241, 243, 2467

275

and difference principle, 30, 31, 200, 241, 246 and the original position, 289, 117, 1967, 203, 226, 241, 2467 and political liberalism, 141 and redistribution, 2732, 1968, 200204, 2078 Raz, Joseph, 52 Reagan, Ronald, 92 Redistribution, 2341, 1948, 2012, 206 and equality, 22, 2733, 356, 38, 1957, 2005 and private property, 237, 194, 197, 200, 201, 2048 Regan, Tom, 239 Rehnquist, William, 179 Religious dress, 43 burqa, 56 hijab, 435 niqab, 445 Responsibility to protect, 21314, 224, 228 Rich, Adrienne, 139 right, the, and the good, 101 Right to Die with Dignity Bill (CAN), 143 Rights, 1, 6, 20, 112, 879, 967, 100, 102, 1046 and abortion, 12741 and affirmative action, 723, 7880 of animals, 23839 cultural rights, 4864, 65, 130 and euthanasia, 143, 1467, 14950 and foreign aid, 1948, 200201, 2048 of future persons, 235, 2419 and military intervention, 20911, 21329 of minorities, 4264, 153, 154, 166, 16970 and sexual orientation, 10925 see also Civil Rights Act and Civil Rights Movement Rodriguez, Richard, 82 Rodriguez, Sue, 143 Roe v. Wade, US Supreme Court decision in, 131, 136, 140

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 276

276

Index
Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change, 233, 24950 Stockholm Declaration, see Conference on the Human Environment, UN Straw, Jack, 45 Sudan, also Darfur, 213, 214, 221, 228 Suicide, see euthanasia Sullivan, Andrew, 115 Summers, Lawrence, 84 Sunstein, Cass, 163, 185 Tamir, Yael, 51 Taxation, 1838 inheritance tax, 18, 21, 110 and poverty, 1820 Taylor, Charles, 52, 578 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (US), 19 Terrorism, 1, 17188 Teson, Fernando, 2245 Thatcher, Margaret, 20 Third Way, the, 22 Thirty Years War, 217 Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 734, 138, 146 Thoreau, Henry David, 230 Tooley, Michael, 135 Treaty of Amsterdam, 68 Treaty of Waitangi, 46 Tully, James, 58 Unger, Peter, 194 United Nations Development Programme, 190, 250 Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World, 250 Utilitarianism, 10, 16 (definition), 22, 33, 51, 58, 215 and abortion, 1345 and affirmative action, 71, 73, 756, 82 and environmental conservation, 235, 23841 and euthanasia, 145, 1479 and foreign aid, 1945, 208 and terrorism, 180, 185 Vacco v. Quill, US Supreme Court decision in, 144, 146

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 18 Rosenblum, Nancy, 50 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 9, 589, 221 Rushdie, Salmon, 43, 153, 155, 170 Rwanda, 211, 218 Sabir, Rizwaan, 175 Sandel, Michael, 73, 93, 120, 141, 147, 164, 244 Scanlon, Thomas, 146 Schenck v. United States, Supreme Court decision in, 156 Schiavo, Terri, 144 Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 111 Scruton, Roger, 122 Secretary of State for the Home Department v. JJ and others, British High Court decision in, 174 Segregation, 65, 768 Sen, Amartya, 195, 198 separate but equal, 110 September 11, 2001, terrorist attack of, 1, 171, 173, 178, 179, 181, 182 Sex Discrimination Act (UK), 66 Sex-selection, 130 Shklar, Judith, 1801 Shrader-Frechette, Kristin, 2412 Shrage, Laurie, 105 Shue, Henry, 195 Sikhs, 43 Silko, Leslie Marmon, 55 Singer, Peter, 75, 134, 148, 1945, 198, 204, 208, 238, 239 slippery slope arguments, 145, 148, 150, 159, 167 Social contract, 28, 217, 227 Social democrats and welfare, 22 Societal cultures, 53 and immigrant groups, 556 Somalia, 211 Sovereignty, 7, 10, 456, 58, 163, 199, 206, 209, 21320, 2248 Speech, freedom of, 89, 98102, 15270 hate speech, 1535, 1578, 15960, 1635, 1679 Stalin, Joseph, 205 Steiner, Hillel, 242

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 277

Index
Valls, Andrew, 74 Voluntary associations, 42, 4950, 56 Waldron, Jeremy, 50, 51, 185 Walzer Michael, 94, 2203, 229 Warren, Mary Ann, 135 Washington v. Glucksberg, US Supreme Court decision in, 144, 146 Wasserstrom, Richard, 72 Weber, Max, 2 Welfare, 1841 and means testing , 20, 26 and universal basic income, 26 and work for the dole, 20 and working families tax credit, 20 Welfare queen, 37 Welfare state, the, 18, 21 West, Robyn, 118

277

Wisconsin v. Yoder, US Supreme Court decision in, 45, 50 Witte, Jr, John, 123 Wolf, Susan, 147 Wolfenden Committee Report , 93, 120 Wollstonecraft, Mary, 128 World Bank, The, 1, 189, 191, 192, 198 World Charter for Nature, 231 World Commission on Environment and Development, UN, 231 World Health Organization, The, 112 Yoder, see Wisconsin v. Yoder , US Supreme Court decision in, 45, 50 Young, Iris Marion, 41, 60 Zoellick, Robert, 1

Smits Index

5/5/09

10:14 am

Page 278