: This article considers what contribution the work of John Rawls can make to questions about animal ethics. It argues that there are more normative resources in A Theory of Justice for a concern with animal welfare than some of Rawls's critics acknowledge. However, the move from A Theory of Justice to Political Liberalism sees a depletion of normative resources in Rawlsian thought for addressing animal ethics. The article concludes by endorsing the implication of A Theory of Justice that we (...) look for ways other than rights discourse to respect and protect the well-being of animals. (shrink)

Perhaps the most animated debate in green political thought-the subdiscipline of political theory devoted to the relations between humanity, politics and environment-addresses the question of the compatibility of ecologism and liberal democracy, more particularly the liberal aspects of the latter. The present article affirms and further elaborates earlier suggestions that existing approaches to this matter are either flawed or, when defensible, prone to produce trivial conclusions. Incompatibility of the two theories is always to be expected, in one form or another. (...) It is argued that a characterization of political theories as families growing and changing over time, a notion partly derived from Wittgenstein’s family concept, allows us to understand ecologism and liberalism as evolving theories, and to anticipate the development of both-which may lead to far more surprising conclusions. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that noise is a significant source of social harm and thoseharmed by noise often suffer not merely a misfortune but an injustice. I arguethat noise is a problem of justice in two ways; firstly, noise is a burden of socialcooperation and so the question of the distribution of this burden arises. And,secondly, some noises, although burdensome, are nevertheless just becausethey arise from practices that are ‘reasonable’. I offer a number of distinctions,between necessary and unnecessary noise, (...) between public and private noiseand between reasonable and unreasonable noise. What justice requires willdiffer according to what kind of noise we consider. My purpose is to give normativeurgency to the problem of noise by understanding certain instances ofit as not merely annoyances and nuisances but instances of injustice. (shrink)

This review essay on three recent books on John Rawls’s theory of justice, by Catherine Audard, Samuel Freeman, and Thomas Pogge, describes the great boon they offer serious students of Rawls. They form a united front in firmly and definitively rebuffing Robert Nozick’s libertarian critique, Michael Sandel’s communitarian critique, and more generally critiques of “neutralist liberalism,” as well as in affirming the basic unity of Rawls’s position. At a deeper level, however, they diverge, and in ways that, this essay suggests, (...) go astray on subtle questions of interpretation: Freeman overemphasizes reciprocity, Pogge miscasts Rawls as a consequentialist, and Audard exaggerates the Kantian aspect of Rawls’s core, continuing commitment to “doctrinal autonomy.”. (shrink)

Publishing A Theory of Justice in 1971 John Rawls defined a conceptual realm of justice as that of a well-ordered society in which some principles of justice should be tested before seeking to apply them to distribute primary goods among co-operative representative subjects (considered as equals within the basic structure of society) and other subjects, who are not necessarily co-operative, even if they are included in the contract of justice by the representatives through the indirect moral duties theory. Representative subjects (...) were interested in possessing and preserving − for themselves and for their descendants − all kinds of goods: natural, primary, social and public ones. They are interested in maintaining economic and social distinctions obtained by fair work distribution, as well. In explaining his theory of a fair distribution of primary social goods, John Rawls does not include, at least explicitly, the kind of goods I am suggesting in this paper to be called natural environmental goods, the kind of goods which are indispensable to secure, with no exception, the survival of all organisms subjected to basic needs, including human needs. Natural environmental goods seems to have been forgotten by Rawls, or at least considered as not implicated in his model of a fair institutional distribution of primary social goods. Following what Michael S. PRITCHARD, Wade L. ROBISON, Russ MANNING, Brent A. SINGER, Daniel P. THERO and Troy W. HARTLEY have critically pointed in some of their articles, I am going firstly to show the lack of the concept of natural environmental goods in Rawls’ Theory of Justice, and secondly, I suggest considering natural environmental goods as part of a non-speciesist theory of justice. So, I hope to contribute to extend the philosophical legacy of A Theory of Justice, in order to include in our moral consideration needs and interests of all living beings. In other words, I will try to consider the issue of justice not just as a question of rationality but of reasonability. (shrink)