The realities of orthodox applications of philosophy

Whilst reading through Whiteness as Property, one topic of interest that stood out to me was the evolution of the underlying rationales Whites have historically used to justify the racial hierarchy in American society. In particular, I found it interesting that the original rationale was as simple as "it was their racial otherness that came to justify the subordinated status of Blacks" (Harris 1717). In this instance, I couldn't help but recall Hobbes's theories on equality, and how moral notions such as justice are only in place due to consensus within an individual commonwealth (Hobbes 78). What this means is that the notions of "justice" only extend as far as "membership" within the commonwealth, which could be gatekept with whatever arbitrary metric the commonwealth sees fit. As such, when applying this theory in real life, we see that the "in-group" is the Europeans, while the "out-group" consists of everyone else, including Blacks and Native Americans. By applying Hobbes's philosophical theory in this scenario, one could, strangely enough, make the claim that the practices of slavery and racial discrimination are not immoral due to those being mistreated belonging not to the commonwealth that has agreed to come together and forge "justice". Therefore, one could argue that the forceful dehumanization of fellow human beings is not actually morally abhorrent. 

Indeed, this actually was the argument that was used to defend the egregious institution of slavery, with theories and claims made based on the rights of conquest being thrown around constantly. What this shows, however, are the dark realities of philosophical thinkings of the past. I think that when philosophical concepts become too abstract and written, one fails to see the realities and consequences of applying that line of philosophical thinking in real life. This is of course easier said than done, but the example of Hobbes and its seemingly logical defense of abhorrent institutions goes to show that philosophy is actually an applied field. That is, philosophical thinking, especially involving governance and society, ought to be conceptualized with the effects that it can have with society in mind. 

  Therefore, this begs the question of whether or not there can be objectively unjust philosophical thinkings? And whether or not real-life implications of philosophical thoughts ought to play a role in judging their validity? 

Comments

  1. Kenneth OwusuJanuary 27, 2022 at 4:31 AM

    I think this is why Hobbes theory is rejected... he makes humans out to be amoral beasts in the state of nature with only one intuition: preservation at all costs. This simply isn't how humans are. Humans are obviously more complex and do things outside of self-preservation; we sacrifice out of love, empathize and sympathize. And as rational creatures it doesn't follow that we can't self-moralize because of these other sentiments we hold. I'm more inclined to believe a more Lockean/Kantian framework in which we do not need society to know what justice is. While a society would help to codify our moral code and enforce the justice we seek, it certainly isn't a prerequisite. In a Lockean/Kantian framework, slavery is wrong and immoral regardless of the "philosophical thinking" and regardless of the time period. Hobbes' account of human nature is an objectively unjust philosophical thinking and while I value non-ideal theory, I think ideal theory is also valid and plays a role.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more