Liberal egalitarianism Libertarianism Republicanism
Basic idea: seeks to combine the values of equality, personal Basic idea: seek to maximise autonomy and individual Basic idea: liberty and individual rights as central values; the
freedom and personal responsibility freedom and minimise state violation of individual liberties sovereignty of the people is the source of all authority in law
Rawls Nozick Pettit
Original position and veil of ignorance Moral basis 1 Central motivator behind republicanism is the desire to
We don’t know ascriptive characteristics and our The world is given and we have different forms of hedge against domination or arbitrary mastery by another
conception of the good, but we know we can puruse a property Suggests there is a second type of liberty, not merely
conception of the good (and thus need primary goods) Justice comes from the protection of these holdings negative or positive, but rather liberty as nondomination
Outcome is a hypothetical contract Freedom means having power over what happens to one’s Arendt
Everyone ends up with equal rights to most extensive set holdings Freedom should be taken into the public sphere (the polis)
of total liberties and socioecon inequalities are arranged so Outcome 1 and be political
they maximise the position of the worst off and all offices Minimal state (state protects holdings), protects against Freedom is a thing performed
and positions are open to all with fair equality of unjust infringements of one’s property rights She blames liberalism for associating freedom and will
opportunity Moral basis 2 with one another
Difference principle: agreement to regard the distribution Separateness of persons: everyone’s achievements are Sovereignty and will are not the same thing
of natural talents as a common asset; what is just/unjust is their own
how institutions deal with natural talents Outcome 2:
Positional goods: goods where there will never be enough No taxation, because taxation = coercion and is thus
for everyone, but this is also what makes them valuable; involuntary
these goods can never be equalised (e.g. uni education) Redistribution must take place voluntarily = charity
Objections: 3 ways one justly owns property: Acquisition, Transfer,
Risk aversion, Priority of liberty, Redistribution, Rectification
Hypothetical contract, Egoism, Private sphere Critiques
Abizadeh How can one acquire unowned property?
States cannot unilaterally control a border How do we know if others are being made worse off?
Border control has to be justified to everyone because the Why believe land is initially unowned? What if it is
demos is in principle unbounded commonly owned?
Borders must be mutually run, taking into account the World history has not been one of justice, doesn’t this
wills of the nonmembers and citizens invalidate the principle?
Carens Even if we could rectify present injustices of transfer,
Liberalism taken seriously = open borders what about past ones?
If individuals are all of equal moral worth and individuals Takeaways
are prior to community, we cannot distinguish between Radical inequality might be justified
citizens and those seeking citizenship State action = minimal
Supports a strong open borders thesis Distribution is not a matter of justice
Liberal cases against open borders are misguided Steiner
We need to internationalise the Rawlsian position Justice is global, but we owe nothing to foreigners outside
Libertarians can also make no claims against open borders of ownership rights, so a global arrangement protects and
All other arguments can be distilled to accident of birth: enforces these
, where you were born is random and believing you chose it Defence of why minimal claims of justice do in fact cross
is meaningless borders
There can be public order/safety restriction: immigrants A state can exclude based on analogy to private property,
cannot violate safety/order but kind of problematic that it’s a jump from private
property to territory (in the analogy to summerhouses)
If transfers are just, we can have labour migration or
permanent visits
Luck egalitarian Communitarianism Liberalism
Basic idea: compensation of people for undeserved/random Basic idea: emphasis on the connection between the individual Basic idea: individual rights
bad luck and community
Dworkin Sandel Berlin
Suggests a difference between welfare and resources Critique of liberalism 2 conceptions of liberty
Welfare egalitarian = we care about outcomes The right should be grounded in the good (as opposed to Negative liberty (freedom from interference)
Resource egalitarians = we care about opportunity prior to it) Liberty as a boundary around the individual
We need a balance of welfare and equality (welfare alone Creates a political argument against liberalism (liberalism Positive liberty (freedom to)/(freedom as self-mastery)
is insufficient) erodes democracy) The free self’s ability to actualise their potential
Functioning market econ is the friend of equality if begun Basis of his claim is philosophical But this divides the self (higher and lower) and thus can
with well-designed capitalist tools The unencumbered self cannot generate principles of open door to totalitarianism or self-abnegation
Thought experiment: desert island, auction, envy test, justice that apply to the community, they will always only Kymlicka
hypothetical insurance scheme be individual-level Egalitarian plateau
Improves Rawls’ idea by being ambition sensitive, but Miller Liberal culturalist position: it‘s not controversial to say
endowment insensitive 3 kinds of liberty: republican, liberal and idealist some version of community/group matters for individual
We have to distinguish between option and brute luck for Doesnt want the closed borders idea to be racial, but autonomy
this system to work instead regarding human rights What kinds of group rights: special representation, self-
Finds 3 defenses of the right to migrate: freedom of governemnt, polyethnic
movement, right to exit a state, rights of free association These afford external protection against the will of the
But argues there is no right to immigrate majority and the ability to impose restrictions on own
Sovereignty necessitates control over borders group members
The rights of existing citizens should outweigh those of Liberalism requires that the individual is protected from
migrants the group
Taylor Defense of minority rights if they are external (e.g.
Premise that Berlin is correct but distinctions are fuzzy domination), but not internal (e.g.individual rights)
Positive liberty is something like independence and Favours national groups over immigrants
positive is something like autonomy, but these positions Rights claims can be grounded in equality, historical
have become caricatures agreement and cultural diversity
We need to instead recast the distinction Objections
Positive liberty as an exercise concept (the individual is What counts as culture?
Basic idea: seeks to combine the values of equality, personal Basic idea: seek to maximise autonomy and individual Basic idea: liberty and individual rights as central values; the
freedom and personal responsibility freedom and minimise state violation of individual liberties sovereignty of the people is the source of all authority in law
Rawls Nozick Pettit
Original position and veil of ignorance Moral basis 1 Central motivator behind republicanism is the desire to
We don’t know ascriptive characteristics and our The world is given and we have different forms of hedge against domination or arbitrary mastery by another
conception of the good, but we know we can puruse a property Suggests there is a second type of liberty, not merely
conception of the good (and thus need primary goods) Justice comes from the protection of these holdings negative or positive, but rather liberty as nondomination
Outcome is a hypothetical contract Freedom means having power over what happens to one’s Arendt
Everyone ends up with equal rights to most extensive set holdings Freedom should be taken into the public sphere (the polis)
of total liberties and socioecon inequalities are arranged so Outcome 1 and be political
they maximise the position of the worst off and all offices Minimal state (state protects holdings), protects against Freedom is a thing performed
and positions are open to all with fair equality of unjust infringements of one’s property rights She blames liberalism for associating freedom and will
opportunity Moral basis 2 with one another
Difference principle: agreement to regard the distribution Separateness of persons: everyone’s achievements are Sovereignty and will are not the same thing
of natural talents as a common asset; what is just/unjust is their own
how institutions deal with natural talents Outcome 2:
Positional goods: goods where there will never be enough No taxation, because taxation = coercion and is thus
for everyone, but this is also what makes them valuable; involuntary
these goods can never be equalised (e.g. uni education) Redistribution must take place voluntarily = charity
Objections: 3 ways one justly owns property: Acquisition, Transfer,
Risk aversion, Priority of liberty, Redistribution, Rectification
Hypothetical contract, Egoism, Private sphere Critiques
Abizadeh How can one acquire unowned property?
States cannot unilaterally control a border How do we know if others are being made worse off?
Border control has to be justified to everyone because the Why believe land is initially unowned? What if it is
demos is in principle unbounded commonly owned?
Borders must be mutually run, taking into account the World history has not been one of justice, doesn’t this
wills of the nonmembers and citizens invalidate the principle?
Carens Even if we could rectify present injustices of transfer,
Liberalism taken seriously = open borders what about past ones?
If individuals are all of equal moral worth and individuals Takeaways
are prior to community, we cannot distinguish between Radical inequality might be justified
citizens and those seeking citizenship State action = minimal
Supports a strong open borders thesis Distribution is not a matter of justice
Liberal cases against open borders are misguided Steiner
We need to internationalise the Rawlsian position Justice is global, but we owe nothing to foreigners outside
Libertarians can also make no claims against open borders of ownership rights, so a global arrangement protects and
All other arguments can be distilled to accident of birth: enforces these
, where you were born is random and believing you chose it Defence of why minimal claims of justice do in fact cross
is meaningless borders
There can be public order/safety restriction: immigrants A state can exclude based on analogy to private property,
cannot violate safety/order but kind of problematic that it’s a jump from private
property to territory (in the analogy to summerhouses)
If transfers are just, we can have labour migration or
permanent visits
Luck egalitarian Communitarianism Liberalism
Basic idea: compensation of people for undeserved/random Basic idea: emphasis on the connection between the individual Basic idea: individual rights
bad luck and community
Dworkin Sandel Berlin
Suggests a difference between welfare and resources Critique of liberalism 2 conceptions of liberty
Welfare egalitarian = we care about outcomes The right should be grounded in the good (as opposed to Negative liberty (freedom from interference)
Resource egalitarians = we care about opportunity prior to it) Liberty as a boundary around the individual
We need a balance of welfare and equality (welfare alone Creates a political argument against liberalism (liberalism Positive liberty (freedom to)/(freedom as self-mastery)
is insufficient) erodes democracy) The free self’s ability to actualise their potential
Functioning market econ is the friend of equality if begun Basis of his claim is philosophical But this divides the self (higher and lower) and thus can
with well-designed capitalist tools The unencumbered self cannot generate principles of open door to totalitarianism or self-abnegation
Thought experiment: desert island, auction, envy test, justice that apply to the community, they will always only Kymlicka
hypothetical insurance scheme be individual-level Egalitarian plateau
Improves Rawls’ idea by being ambition sensitive, but Miller Liberal culturalist position: it‘s not controversial to say
endowment insensitive 3 kinds of liberty: republican, liberal and idealist some version of community/group matters for individual
We have to distinguish between option and brute luck for Doesnt want the closed borders idea to be racial, but autonomy
this system to work instead regarding human rights What kinds of group rights: special representation, self-
Finds 3 defenses of the right to migrate: freedom of governemnt, polyethnic
movement, right to exit a state, rights of free association These afford external protection against the will of the
But argues there is no right to immigrate majority and the ability to impose restrictions on own
Sovereignty necessitates control over borders group members
The rights of existing citizens should outweigh those of Liberalism requires that the individual is protected from
migrants the group
Taylor Defense of minority rights if they are external (e.g.
Premise that Berlin is correct but distinctions are fuzzy domination), but not internal (e.g.individual rights)
Positive liberty is something like independence and Favours national groups over immigrants
positive is something like autonomy, but these positions Rights claims can be grounded in equality, historical
have become caricatures agreement and cultural diversity
We need to instead recast the distinction Objections
Positive liberty as an exercise concept (the individual is What counts as culture?
