Nagel ends his piece with: "the path from anarchy to justice must go through injustice," (pg 147). He says that strong suprantional institutions will at first not aim at justice but pursue common interests; after these institutions are stabilized and recognized, they can be revised to pursue justice. I feel like this is Nagel's expanded version of Rawls' notions of overlapping consensus and reflective equilibrium. If so, could we then attempt to apply Rawls' (domestic) difference principle globally?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This could be applied to global justice in the sense that every society should have a basic structure and an interest at pursuing the general goodwill before that society can institute justice. However, this similarity between Rawls and Nagel does not therefore imply that Rawls theory could be applied domestically. This statement for both Rawls and Nagel is simply a premise to their argment, so it would not be safe to assume that their arguments automatically have overlaps and could achieve the same goals. Even as such, it is not correct to assume that Nagel's theory can even solve global problems. These two authors are simply laying a base to the formation of justice in society.
Post a Comment