1.

Michael Sandel, The procedural republic and the unencumbered self

2. Philip Pettit, Rawls Political Ontology
Background
Rawls work has provoked three debates:
(1) rights-oriented liberals VS utilitarians (Should justice be founded on utility, as
Jeremy Bentham, John Austin and John Stuart Mill argue, or does respect for
individual rights require a basis for justice independent of utilitarian considerations, as
Kant and Rawls maintain?1);
(2) Egalitarian liberals (Rawls difference principle) VS Libertarian liberals
(Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek argue that redistributive policies that tax the rich
to help the poor violate our rights 2). This debate in American politics is between
defenders of the market economy and advocates of the welfare state;
(3) Debate on the right is prior to the good. Government should be neutral among
competing conception of the good life3.
In the two articles, both Sandel and Pettit hold that Rawls argues against
utilitarianism (utilitarian treats society as whole as if it were a single person) and
libertarianism (libertarian opposes redistribution). Sandel elaborates the predicament
of the unencumbered self. Pettit reconstructs Rawls third view civicity (Pettits
word).
1. Sandels article
Michael Sandel tries to explore the connections between philosophy and practices.
Sandel calls Rawls version of the self the unencumbered self, a self understood as
prior to and independent of purposes and ends (p.86). Sandel argues that this
conception of the self informs the public philosophy of contemporary American
politics, which he labels as the procedural republic.
Sandel focuses on contemporary American politics, and the promise and the failure of
the unencumbered self. He is concerned with the three striking facts (1.philosophical
power; 2. philosophical failure of the claim for the priority of the right over the
good; 3. uneasy embodiment in America) of liberalism elaborated by Rawls.
Kantian Foundations
As the subject is prior to its ends, so the right is prior to the good. To develop a
viable Kantian conception of justice, Rawls writes, the force and content of Kants
doctrine must be detached from its background in transcendental idealism, and recast
within the canons of a reasonable empiricism. (p.85)
From Transcendental Subject to Unencumbered Self
Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, p.184.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974); Fridrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of
Liberty (1960).
3
Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice.
1
2

Presented by Lina

the distance to secure the selfs identity: it means there is always a distinction between
the values I have and the person I am.
What matters most are not the ends we choose but our capacity to choose them.
(opposite to teleological conceptions)
In Sandels description, Rawls two Principles of Justice are against utilitarianism and
libertarianism since Utilitarians fail to admit the distinction of persons and
Libertarians fail to acknowledge the arbitrariness of fortune.
Rawls difference principle begins with the thought that the talents and assets are
the arbitrariness of social and natural contingency. These assets are common assets
and that society has a prior claim. Sandel thinks Rawls argument is inconsistent. If an
individual does not have a privileged claim on the assets which are accidentally his, it
does not follow that everyone in the world collectively does.
The predicament of the unencumbered self: between detachment and entanglement
The Procedural Republic
The paradox in America is the relations between the people and the state: the citizens
feel the state as an intrusive giant monster (Godzilla pk Bambi in my own word)
while the state views itself disenpowered, unable to effectively control the domestic
economy, to respond to persisting social ills, or to work Americas will in the world
(really?).
Transition from the national republic to the procedural republic
Sandel suspects two broad tendencies in the procedural republic, which crowd out
democratic possibilities and undercut the kind of community on which it depends.
(Sandel is a philosophical defender of communitarianism)
2. Pettits article
Ontology of political society
Three different political ontologies: (1)solidarism (represents the people as a unified
agent or agency); (2) singularism (represents the people as a mere aggregate or
collection); (3) civicity The members of a civicity will be committed to debating
about the purposes they purportedly share. (p.167)
Pettit argues that Rawls rejects utilitarianism (people should be thought of as
consumers in relation to government policy and such policy amis to maximize overall
consumer satisfaction).
Robert Nozicks imaginary situation of Robinson
Singularism (espoused by Robert Nozick) implies that social and political
involvement make no difference to peoples basic claims or rights, while Rawls holds
that social relations make all the difference. Rawls argues that society is a cooperative
venture for mutual advantages.

Presented by Lina

While Nozick thinks that Rawls is confused , Pettit sees evidence that Rawls endorses
an alternative to the singularism.
Images of political society government as a representative of the people (p.165-166)
(1) Solidarism: representatives act on behalf of the collective people as a whole, not
as individuals
(2) Singularism: there is no such thing as society (Margaret Thatcher) Democracy
is reduced to the right of individual citizens to an equal degree of political influence
over representatives.
(3) Another way in which a representative government might relate to the people:
disagreeable members expect their representatives to listen to them and take
guidance from their public deliberation and debate.
But they still expect the representatives to take their guidance from that public
deliberation and debate, and they hold them to that expectation: the
representatives can expect to be challenged and perhaps dismissed if they do not
meet it. (p.166)
Since they are perennially arguing, presumptions and valuations shared within the
group emerge in their debates.
Yet in debating about such questions (eg. public medical system, involvement in
war, separation of powers...), we will almost always agree in common on the
relevance of certain presumptions and valuations, even if they do not lead us
in the same direction. (p.167)
Pettit argues that Rawls endorses the image of political society as a civicity, or
something close to a civicity. In Pettits language, the commonly authorized
presumptions and valuations correspond Rawls certain widely accepted ideas
which are generated by democratic political culture. (p.169)
Democratic society is not a group agent of a solidarist kind. But neither is it a meer
aggregate of separate individual agents. It is, precisely, a civicity. (p.170)
Rawls Peoples (The Law of Peoples)
Pettit argues that the ontology also has an impact on Rawls thinking about justice
between peoples. In his views, there are peoples as well as persons. The reality of
peoples means that the law of international justice cannot engage with individuals
directly, or at least not with the individuals who belong to liberal and decent
societies. (p.172)

Presented by Lina