 Natural
rights, common good, rational parties in an original position, the
will of God, the principle of utility -- all of you are trying to find
a rock on which to base your theory of justice.
Most modern moral theory (excluding theories that depend on
theology) derives from the the Enlightenment project - which was essentially
an attempt to expand human knowledge through the use of observation and human reason.
The great triumph of the Enlightenment was the mechanics of Newton.
Newton's work was inspiring, but it was a tremendous leap of faith to think that we could find clear and certain knowledge in the area of ethics and social philosophy. Kant thought that he had found a touchstone for ethical principles in his categorical imperative. Bentham and the utilitarians thought that they could convert ethics into a science. They were both mistaken. The critics
have exposed the flaws in both views.
My point is that the search for solid, unquestionable foundations is a failure. The solid foundations that are somehow outside human experience and do not derive from human experience, including human needs and desires, are a will-o'-the-wisp.
I feel strongly that both libertarianism and utilitarianism -- any maybe Rawls too -- are searching for the impossible.
The only hope for a 'foundation' for ethics or social philosophy is to ground them in the values of people in our situation here and now.
We can't get outside our situation. We can't get outside history.
I'm not suggesting that we give up the concepts of justice or rights or the common good. I think all of these are useful. I'm suggesting that we be clear that when we use those concepts we are not talking about something universal, something that all rational 'men' would agree to. Instead, we are working out of our own culture and its history.
|
