continuing from Tim

 I want to comment on Tim's post here and possibly defend but question Shelby in a few cases although I fundamentally come to similar conclusion to Tim.

The first example is where a person steals something and is chased by the owner who is killed in defense of the thief. Tim points out that this seems to result in an absurd conclusion and thus could not be feasibly adopted. The first thing I would say is that if this understanding of crime is adopted, then the person chasing the thief would not be chasing them in the first place. Secondly, I believe Shelby would respond that some crimes are reasonable and some are not. So, theft, particularly minor theft, is a reasonable crime to commit. I do not think Shelby would call murder a reasonable crime in this context as killing the person does not imply this idea of a willingness to honor the terms of social cooperation that other accept and abide by (212). So some crimes are reasonable and some are not from people who are oppressed.

I think the bigger point in Tim's post is this idea of social order. It it undeniable that if we accepted this idea that crime would increase, possibly drastically. I first would say that as long as the undermining of social order does not inhibit justice, Shelby would argue that this policy is successful; Justice is the primary goal not social order. However, I do agree with Tim in that drawing out these arguments would likely not even create the justice it's supposed to. Let us say we do in fact allow these crimes. I do not believe it would be successful because it would remove this sense of external judgment. There would be no crimes that were themselves crimes. Justice requires legitimate and formal processes which this idea seems to remove. Tim's idea of social order would in fact be compromised to a point where there would be less justice than before so even Shelby would not be able to support this society. Unfortunately, I see the current system as imperfect and this alternative as imperfect. 

I must admit, I do see some well thought out and aimed policies as the best way to solve these problems. I doubt Shelby's intention with this work was explicitly to "rustle feathers", but the solution of allowing oppressed people to commit does strike me as an unnecessarily complex idea. 

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...
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...
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