Woke up and chose violence

 It seems almost everyone chose to write on Rawls's idea of civil disobedience so I'm not going to redefine it here. In this blog, I wanted to write instead on Rawl's conception of the militant person and the role they play. 

The militant person is one who's resistance is violent and is without respect for the law. This person "is much more deeply opposed to the existing political system. He does not accept it as one which is nearly just or reasonable so he believes it departs widely from its professed principles or that it pursues a mistaken conception of justice altogether" (322.)

This description reminded me of the moments during the various police brutality protests that occurred in 2020 that lead to violence and looting. These protests where meant to be peaceful which invokes Rawls idea of civil disobedience. Despite this protestors were met with malice and violence by police forces who came fully armored with tear gas and rubber bullets. These protest then turned to riots during which there was destruction of private property (stores) and subsequent looting. 

When this happened, I saw two sectors of people respond to this. The first group of people admonished the use of violence and the turn to destruction as a form of protest. The second group recognized that rich people and those with influence have a vested interest in protecting private property and so where else to make them hurt if not their pockets? If those that form that institutions that oppress us are more interested in their property than in our natural rights and liberties as humans, then doesn't it follow that the best way to make them hear our plights and call them to action is to hit em where it hurts? I think Rawls would agree in that by operating with the interest of their (players in the U.S political system) property first, they are operating under a mistaken conception of justice. And even more so that they are doing the exact opposite of what they say they are doing, securing our right to life, liberty, and happiness since these all come second to their property. Rawls would then contend that the limit of these actions should be to large private corporations (such as Target) and that to infringe on the property rights of the innocent (think small business owners) would be unjust. By hitting large corporations, the aim is "to arouse the public to an awareness of the fundamental reforms that need to be made" (56.) 

I agree with all of this but the only point that I may contest Rawls on is on who gets ti decide when the system is so far gone that it warrants militancy. I dont think Rawls as a white man could ever fully understand the scope of the injustices faced by Black people, even under his veil of ignorance. Because of his social situatedness, he is limited in his ability to grasp the plights of Black people and so cannot possibly be able to say when there is need for revolution. This goes back to our talk with Dr. B - to understand that even with all this talk of the veil of ignorance and the initial position, Rawl's social situatedness makes him epistemically subordinate to marginalized groups. 

Comments

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