3. INSTITUTIONS AND PERSONS
Ashoka’s Philosophy on Goodness, Tolerance, and Social Justice
1. Link Between Goodness and Smartness: Ashoka, much like Wittgenstein, recognized the connection between goodness (ethical behavior) and smartness (intelligent decision-making). He believed that intolerance towards others can harm the very group one is trying to promote, showing a lack of wisdom.
2. Promotion of Tolerance: Ashoka argued that even when people belong to different religious or social groups, they should respect and honor each other. This tolerance was important for maintaining peace and harmony in society.
3. Consequences of Intolerance: Ashoka warned that those who show respect only to their own sect while criticizing others could unintentionally damage their own cause. He believed such behavior reflected poor judgment and harmed both social unity and the group’s reputation.
4. Voluntary Good Behavior: Ashoka advocated for citizens to behave kindly and justly toward each other voluntarily, without being forced by laws or authority. He believed that goodness should come from within, not through compulsion.
5. Role of the State in Welfare: Ashoka saw the state’s role as not only ensuring welfare and freedom for its people but also encouraging ethical behavior and social responsibility through guidance rather than force.
6. Historical Recognition: Ashoka’s commitment to social justice and welfare led H.G. Wells to describe him as a uniquely virtuous ruler in world history, shining as a rare example of enlightened leadership.
This philosophy emphasizes the importance of both wisdom and kindness in governance and social interactions.
Ashoka vs. Kautilya: Different Approaches to Advancing Justice
1. Ashoka’s Focus on Human Behavior: Ashoka believed in reforming society by encouraging individuals to voluntarily act with kindness and moral responsibility. He thought people could be persuaded to do good through reflection and understanding the negative consequences of bad behavior. His approach was optimistic, emphasizing behavioral reform over institutional control.
2. Kautilya’s Emphasis on Institutions: In contrast, Kautilya, a political advisor to Ashoka’s grandfather, Chandragupta, stressed the importance of strong social institutions for maintaining order and justice. He believed that restrictions, incentives, and punishments were essential for controlling human behavior, as people wouldn’t always act ethically on their own.
3. Institutional View of Justice: Kautilya’s approach was more pragmatic, focusing on the role of laws and institutions in ensuring good conduct. His view reflected a skepticism about relying solely on voluntary ethical behavior, aligning with modern economists who see humanity as driven by incentives and needing institutional checks.
4. Ashoka’s Conversion: After witnessing the brutality of war in Kalinga, Ashoka embraced non-violence and ethical reform, disbanding his army and advocating for social justice. However, this optimistic approach didn’t fully prevent the collapse of his empire, which dissolved after his death.
5. Incomplete Perspectives: While Ashoka overestimated the power of moral persuasion, Kautilya’s emphasis on strict institutional control also may have been limited. Both approaches offer valuable insights, but combining ethical reform with strong institutions seems necessary for advancing justice in society.
This comparison highlights the balance needed between promoting ethical behavior and maintaining institutional control in governance.
The Contingent Nature of Institutional Choice
1. Institutions and Behavior Work Together: The roles of institutions and human behavior are closely linked when trying to achieve justice in society. This idea applies not only to ancient thinkers like Kautilya and Ashoka but also to modern political theories.
2. John Rawls’ Approach to Justice: Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness proposes principles that should guide the creation of institutions. However, he does not specify exact institutions, allowing flexibility based on how people behave in different societies.
3. Behavioral Differences Matter: Rawls’ principles acknowledge that behavior patterns vary between societies. Therefore, institutions must adapt to these behavioral norms while still upholding principles of fairness and justice.
4. Rawls’ Second Principle: This principle states that social and economic inequalities should:
• Be attached to positions open to everyone under fair conditions.
• Benefit the least advantaged members of society.
5. Behavior’s Impact on Institutional Choice: The idea of “fair equality of opportunity” might depend on how people behave, such as the criteria used to select individuals for positions. Similarly, institutions must work with the society’s behavioral norms to ensure that inequalities benefit the least advantaged.
6. Flexibility in Institutional Design: Rawls’ framework allows for flexibility in choosing institutions that align with the society’s behavior while still aiming to achieve fairness for all.
Behavioral Restriction Through Contractarian Reasoning
1. Social Contract and Behavior: Rawls believed that once a social contract is agreed upon, people would abandon self-interest and follow the rules necessary to make the contract work. This assumption is based on the idea of “reasonable” behavior.
2. Rawls’ Expectations for Reasonable Behavior: He expected people to act cooperatively and respect fair terms of cooperation once institutions are established, which makes the process of choosing institutions easier.
3. Reasonable vs. Unreasonable Behavior: According to Rawls, reasonable people desire a fair and cooperative social world. Unreasonable people, however, plan to cooperate but are willing to violate agreements when it suits them.
4. Perfect Justice vs. Real World Application: While Rawls’ theory outlines a vision for a perfectly just society, applying this in the real world is more complicated because actual behavior doesn’t always meet these high expectations.
5. Trust in Institutions: For institutions to work, Rawls argued that people need trust in each other and confidence that everyone will do their part. Over time, this trust strengthens as institutions function successfully.
6. Incentives and Justice: Rawls acknowledged that incentives might be necessary to encourage people to behave justly. Critics argue that this reliance on incentives undermines the idea of perfect justice, where people should act justly without needing rewards.
7. Realistic View on Justice: To advance justice in the real world, Rawls emphasized that institutions should be designed based on realistic behavioral norms. Expecting more from people than they can deliver would hinder progress towards justice.
This approach highlights the need for a balance between ideal principles and practical behavior in the pursuit of justice.
John Rawls outlined his theory of justice in several influential works. The most notable ones include:
1. “A Theory of Justice” (1971): This is Rawls’ most famous work, where he introduces the idea of justice as fairness and the original position. He also presents the two principles of justice, including the Difference Principle.
2. “Political Liberalism” (1993): In this book, Rawls expands on his earlier work and addresses the question of how a stable and just society can exist when citizens hold conflicting religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs.
3. “The Law of Peoples” (1999): This book extends Rawls’ theory of justice to international relations, discussing how principles of justice can be applied to a society of peoples rather than just individuals within a single state.
4. “Justice as Fairness: A Restatement” (2001): This work is a concise reformulation of Rawls’ theory, written to clarify and simplify some of the key ideas from A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism.
These books collectively form the core of Rawls’ philosophy on justice and political theory.
Power and the Need for Countervailing
1. Unchecked Power is Dangerous: John Kenneth Galbraith highlighted that unchecked power is harmful to society. It not only corrupts but also creates imbalances in social institutions.
2. Countervailing Power: Galbraith argued for the importance of different institutions exercising countervailing power, meaning each institution checks and balances the influence of others. This prevents any single institution from dominating society.
3. American Capitalism Example: In his 1952 book American Capitalism, Galbraith explained how the success of American society depended on the balance of power between various institutions, ensuring no one institution becomes overly powerful.
4. Recent Issues in the USA: Galbraith’s theory can explain problems in recent years where the executive branch in the USA has tried to accumulate more power than what the Constitution intended, leading to potential imbalance and abuse of power.
5. Lessons from the Soviet Union: Galbraith’s ideas also shed light on the failures of the former Soviet Union, where the lack of countervailing power led to central control, political purges, economic inefficiencies, and oppression. The absence of democratic practices and plural institutions contributed to the collapse of the USSR.
6. Democracy and Countervailing Power: Democracy, with its multiple sources of power and voice, naturally supports countervailing power. A functioning democracy allows different institutions to keep each other in check, promoting justice and fairness.
The Role of Institutions in Justice
1. Centrality of Institutions: Any theory of justice must place a strong emphasis on the role of institutions because they are crucial in shaping and promoting justice in society.
2. Institutions Are Not Justice Itself: While institutions are important, they should not be seen as the embodiment of justice itself. Viewing institutions as the sole manifestation of justice is a narrow approach, sometimes called “institutional fundamentalism.”
3. Justice Beyond Institutions (Niti vs. Nyaya): The arrangement-centered perspective of niti often focuses on setting up the right institutions to meet the demands of justice. However, the broader perspective of nyaya emphasizes the outcomes or social realizations that institutions create. Justice is not only about having the right institutions but also about how they affect people’s lives.
4. Institutions as Part of Realizations: Institutions are part of the broader outcomes they generate, but they cannot be the sole focus. The well-being of people and the real impacts on their lives must be considered to fully assess justice.
Institutions as Part of Realizations
Institutions are vital in shaping social outcomes, but they are not the final goal of justice. Instead, they are part of a broader process that impacts people’s lives. Here’s a more detailed explanation:
1. Institutions Facilitate Outcomes: Institutions, such as laws, systems of governance, or economic frameworks, serve as structures that influence how resources are distributed, how people interact, and how decisions are made in society. Their purpose is to facilitate outcomes that align with the principles of justice. However, simply having these institutions in place is not enough to ensure justice.
2. Justice in Action, Not in Form: Justice should not be viewed as something that resides only in the existence of institutions. For example, a country might have a constitution that enshrines equality, but if the people in that country are still treated unequally due to biases in how institutions function or due to lack of proper implementation, justice is not achieved. The effectiveness of institutions is measured by their practical impact on people’s lives, not by their theoretical existence.
3. People’s Lives Are the Focus: The broader idea, often referred to as nyaya, is that justice is realized through what actually happens to people—their well-being, rights, and freedoms. If institutions lead to real improvements in people’s lives, like reducing poverty, improving healthcare, or ensuring freedom, then they are contributing to justice. On the other hand, institutions that look good on paper but fail to make a positive difference in practice do not fulfill the demands of justice.
4. Institutions as Part of a Larger System: Institutions are one element in a larger system that includes social behaviors, norms, and practices. To assess whether justice is being achieved, we must look at the overall social outcomes and ask whether people’s lives are being improved. If institutions are not delivering on their promise or if they are creating inequality, they need to be reassessed or reformed.
5. Examples:
• A legal system that promises equal protection but allows wealthier individuals to avoid punishment while the poor are disproportionately punished is an example of institutions failing to produce just outcomes.
• On the other hand, institutions that provide universal healthcare access and reduce the health disparities among different social classes are examples where institutions align with justice by improving people’s actual well-being.
In essence, while institutions are necessary for promoting justice, they are only a part of the equation. The real measure of justice lies in how those institutions improve the lived experiences of people and the fairness of outcomes in society.
In summary, while institutions play a crucial role in promoting justice, we must focus on the actual effects these institutions have on society, rather than viewing the institutions themselves as the ultimate measure of justice.
The Limits of Institution-Centered Theories of Justice
1. Historical Focus on Institutions:
• In economic and social analysis, there is a long-standing tradition of identifying justice with the establishment of the “right” institutional structure.
• Various grand institutional visions have been proposed, such as free markets and free trade or socially owned means of production and central planning. Each has been advocated as the solution to achieving a just society.
2. Failure of Grand Institutional Visions:
• Despite these idealized visions, evidence suggests that these institutional structures rarely deliver the social outcomes their advocates envision.
• The success of any institution in promoting justice is highly contingent on various social, economic, political, and cultural circumstances, which makes their performance unpredictable and context-dependent.
3. Dangers of Institutional Fundamentalism:
• Institutional Fundamentalism refers to the excessive reliance on a specific institutional model to achieve justice, without considering the complexity of societies.
• This overemphasis on institutional structures often leads to a dangerous self-satisfaction, where advocates of these institutions avoid critically examining the actual consequences of their preferred models.
• Instead of focusing on the real-world outcomes, institutional fundamentalism promotes the belief that establishing the ‘right’ institutions alone is sufficient to achieve justice.
4. Institutions Are Not Inherently Good:
• While good institutions may contribute to desirable social outcomes, they are not intrinsically good. Their value lies in their ability to generate acceptable or excellent social achievements.
• The belief that institutions, by their mere existence, guarantee justice ignores the importance of the real effects they have on people’s lives.
5. David Gauthier’s Example in Political Philosophy:
• David Gauthier’s work on ‘morals by agreement’ provides an example of this institution-centered thinking. Gauthier focuses on agreements between different parties around institutional arrangements, and he suggests that these agreements take society all the way to justice.
• Gauthier prioritizes the establishment of institutions, especially market-based institutions, assuming that these structures, once agreed upon, will ensure social justice.
• According to Gauthier, once the ‘right’ institutions are set up, individuals and society no longer need to be constrained by morality, as the institutions themselves will provide the necessary framework for just outcomes.
6. Critique of the Institution-Centered Approach:
• The purely institutional approach assumes that setting up appropriate institutions is enough to ensure justice, without considering the actual effects these institutions produce.
• This perspective neglects the importance of critically examining how these institutions function in practice and whether they genuinely deliver justice in the lives of individuals.
• Ultimately, while good institutions are important, justice requires more than just their establishment—it requires an ongoing evaluation of their real-world impact.
David Gauthier’s Institution-Centered Approach to Justice: Freedom from Morality
1. Institutional Priority in Justice:
• David Gauthier’s theory, outlined in his exploration of ‘morals by agreement,’ places overwhelming emphasis on institutional arrangements.
• In Gauthier’s view, agreements between parties to create certain institutional frameworks are enough to achieve social justice, giving institutions an almost automatic role in ensuring justice.
2. Focus on Market Economy:
• Gauthier’s approach relies heavily on the market economy to produce efficient social and economic arrangements.
• The parties seeking agreements are assumed to focus on setting up the “right” market-based institutions, with the belief that these institutions will naturally lead to social justice without further moral constraints.
3. Freedom from Morality:
• Once the “right” institutions are established, Gauthier argues that individuals no longer need to be guided by moral considerations in their interactions.
• The institutions themselves are seen as sufficient to regulate behavior and ensure justice, liberating individuals from constant moral evaluation.
• This idea is elaborated in the chapter titled ‘The Market: Freedom from Morality’ in Gauthier’s work.
4. Critique of Institutional Focus:
• Gauthier’s approach implies that institutions can operate independently of the actual consequences they generate, focusing more on their structure than their outcomes.
• Critics argue that this overlooks the real-world impact of these institutions and fails to address the moral complexities that persist even within established institutional frameworks.
5. Examples of Gauthier’s Approach:
• Market Economy: Gauthier suggests that in a free market system, institutions can ensure fair trade and efficient resource allocation, reducing the need for moral oversight in individual transactions.
• Institutional Agreements: Once a government or society agrees on institutional rules, such as property laws or trade regulations, the expectation is that justice will naturally follow through adherence to these institutions.
In summary, Gauthier’s theory prioritizes institutions—particularly market-based ones—as central to achieving justice, suggesting that they free individuals from the need for constant moral reflection once established.
The Role of Institutions in Justice: Gauthier and Nozick’s Perspectives
1. Gauthier’s Institution-Centered Approach:
• David Gauthier gives a central role to institutions in ensuring social justice, suggesting that once institutions are rationally chosen through hypothetical agreements, they should not be questioned.
• The focus is on setting up these institutions as the primary method to achieve justice, regardless of what actual results or social outcomes are produced.
2. Temptation for Other Philosophers:
• Gauthier’s reliance on institutions is not unique. Many philosophers have also been drawn to the idea of institutions as the foundation of justice.
• Once institutions are chosen through agreements, there is often a temptation to treat them as inviolable, even if the real-world consequences of those institutions are not always desirable.
3. Can Institutions Alone Ensure Justice?:
• The central issue raised here is whether we can trust chosen institutions to deliver justice without examining the actual results they produce.
• While institutions may be designed with good intentions, there’s a concern about whether leaving everything to institutional arrangements without checking their outcomes is sufficient for justice.
4. Robert Nozick’s Perspective:
• Philosopher Robert Nozick also emphasizes institutions, focusing on individual liberties and property rights.
• In Nozick’s theory, institutions that protect rights such as property ownership, free exchange, and inheritance are essential to justice. However, he doesn’t call for revisions based on outcomes or patterns (such as inequality) produced by these institutions.
5. Nozick’s and Gauthier’s Similarities:
• Although Nozick does not directly advocate for institutions in the same fundamental way as Gauthier, his approach still prioritizes institutions over outcomes.
• Nozick’s vision of a just society depends on the protection of rights through institutions, meaning his theory can also be seen as “institutionally fundamentalist” in practice, even if it’s framed differently.
6. Distinction Between Theories:
• While Gauthier views institutions as central to achieving justice regardless of outcomes, Nozick’s focus is on ensuring rights. Yet, both place significant importance on institutions as necessary for justice.
• The key distinction is that Nozick’s emphasis on rights could be seen as valuing institutions because of what they protect, while Gauthier sees the institutions themselves as the drivers of justice.
In summary, both Gauthier and Nozick argue that institutions are crucial for achieving justice, though they approach the issue from slightly different angles. Gauthier sees institutions as the core of justice, while Nozick emphasizes the role of institutions in safeguarding individual rights, but both give institutions a foundational role in their theories.
NOTE FROM ME
To understand whether a fair agreement has been reached about a certain institution or justifiable issue, we need to examine several criteria that are central to fairness in agreements. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Informed Participation
• All parties involved should have access to the necessary information to make informed decisions. They should understand the implications of the agreement and be aware of alternative options.
• Fairness is compromised if some parties have more knowledge or power than others.
2. Equal Representation
• Each party should have equal standing in the negotiation process. If power imbalances exist (e.g., one party is more dominant), the process may not lead to a fair agreement.
• Equality in bargaining power is crucial for fairness.
3. Voluntary Agreement
• The agreement should be voluntary, without coercion or manipulation. All parties must agree freely, without pressure or threats influencing their decision.
• If one side is forced to accept terms, the agreement cannot be considered fair.
4. Consideration of All Interests
• The agreement should take into account the interests of all parties, not just the more powerful or vocal ones. A fair agreement considers the well-being and perspectives of everyone affected by it.
• If only some parties’ interests are addressed, it is not genuinely fair.
5. Impartiality and Neutrality
• The process of reaching the agreement should be overseen by a neutral party or should follow principles that ensure impartiality, like applying the same standards to all.
• This helps ensure that no party has an unfair advantage during the negotiation.
6. Mutual Benefit
• A fair agreement typically results in mutual benefit, where all parties gain something, even if not equally. There should be no significant exploitation of one side by another.
• Agreements that are overly one-sided tend to be unfair.
7. Justice in Outcomes
• The agreement must lead to just outcomes, not just focus on process. In other words, the results of the agreement should not unfairly disadvantage or harm any party, especially in the long term.
• Rawlsian justice suggests that a fair agreement must be assessed by its consequences for the least advantaged in society.
8. Revisability and Flexibility
• Fair agreements often include mechanisms for review or adjustment over time. If circumstances change, the agreement should be adaptable to ensure ongoing fairness.
• Rigid agreements that cannot be revisited or revised when conditions shift may become unfair over time.
9. Consistency with Principles of Justice
• The agreement should align with broader principles of justice, such as fairness, equality, and respect for rights. Even if parties agree on something, if it violates fundamental justice principles (e.g., human rights), it cannot be considered fair.
• Philosophical frameworks, like those by Rawls, emphasize that agreements must be justifiable to all rational individuals under fair conditions.
By ensuring these conditions are met, we can better assess whether an agreement is fair and justifiable. It requires both a fair process and just outcomes to be considered truly fair.
The Limits of ‘Just Institutions’ and Their Outcomes
1. What Happens if ‘Just Institutions’ Produce Bad Outcomes?
• Sometimes, institutions that are considered just may result in harmful outcomes for society.
• In cases like Robert Nozick’s libertarian theory, even if institutions uphold individual liberties and rights, they may still lead to negative consequences.
• Nozick acknowledges this by making an exception for what he calls “catastrophic moral horror,” where the system’s harmful outcomes are so severe that the institutional setup should be reconsidered.
2. Nozick’s Exception and Its Implications
• Nozick’s exception raises a fundamental question: if catastrophic outcomes can justify abandoning ‘just’ institutions, then what happens to the principle that these institutions are always right?
• If we can abandon institutions in extreme cases, shouldn’t we also reconsider them when less severe but still harmful results occur? This raises doubts about the reliability of giving absolute priority to institutions in his theory of justice.
3. Sensitivity to Real-World Consequences
• A broader issue emerges: focusing solely on the institutional framework can be problematic because it overlooks the actual outcomes these institutions produce.
• Even if institutions are theoretically sound or well-constructed, they may fail to deliver good social results.
• Philosophies that prioritize institutions, like Nozick’s or even John Rawls’ theory of justice, risk ignoring the importance of real-world consequences when assessing justice.
4. John Rawls and Institutional Focus
• John Rawls, another influential political philosopher, emphasizes the role of institutions in promoting a just social structure.
• However, his “principles of justice” are also heavily defined in terms of institutions, which can lean toward a purely institutional view of justice, similar to Nozick’s.
• While Rawls is more concerned with the social outcomes of institutions than Nozick, his focus still raises questions about how much weight should be placed on the actual results of these institutional setups.
5. Conclusion
• The key challenge here is the reliability of institutions in promoting justice. While institutions can provide a framework, we must remain sensitive to their outcomes. A purely institutional focus, as seen in theories like Nozick’s and Rawls’, risks ignoring the real-world consequences, which are critical to achieving genuine social justice.
The Contrast Between Institutional Approaches and Social Outcome Approaches
1. Institutional Theorists’ Approach to Justice
• Some leading theorists of justice focus heavily on the soundness and expected operations of the institutions they recommend.
• These theorists assess justice based on how well these institutions are expected to function, placing trust in the institutions themselves rather than focusing on outcomes.
2. Social Outcome-Based Theories
• In contrast, other theories of justice emphasize the social states or outcomes that actually emerge from these institutions.
• These approaches evaluate whether the resulting social conditions are just, rather than assuming institutions alone are enough.
3. Utilitarianism as an Example
• Utilitarianism is one theory that focuses on social outcomes by measuring the utility (happiness or satisfaction) generated in society.
• However, utilitarianism is limited as it only focuses on utility, ignoring other important factors such as fairness or rights.
4. Social Choice Theory
• Social choice theory, explored by thinkers like Kenneth Arrow, offers a broader evaluation of justice. It doesn’t just focus on utility or end results but also considers the processes and comprehensive states of affairs that emerge.
• This approach aligns with earlier thinkers like Condorcet and Adam Smith, suggesting a more inclusive assessment of justice.
5. The Inclusive Perspective of ‘Nyaya’
• The concept of nyaya emphasizes that justice cannot be solely handed over to the niti (institutional rules and structures) without continuous evaluation.
• Justice is an ongoing process, and we must constantly ask how things are going and whether improvements can be made, rather than resting after setting up institutions.
6. David Gauthier’s Perspective
• David Gauthier’s notion of “freedom from morality” suggests that once institutions are set up, no further moral assessment is needed.
• However, in the inclusive view of nyaya, this is insufficient—justice requires constant re-evaluation of social outcomes and processes, not just reliance on institutions.
Conclusion
The passage highlights the tension between focusing on institutions as the key to justice versus evaluating the actual social outcomes they produce. Theories like utilitarianism and social choice theory stress the importance of real-world consequences, while concepts like nyaya remind us that the pursuit of justice requires ongoing assessment and improvement.
No comments:
Post a Comment