In a recent article in this journal, Alan Thomas presents a novel defence of what I call ‘Rawlsian Institutionalism about Justice’ against G. A. Cohen’s well-known critique. In this response I aim to defend Cohen’s rejection of Institutionalism against Thomas’s arguments. In part this defence requires clarifying precisely what is at issue between Institutionalists and their opponents. My primary focus, however, is on Thomas’s critical discussion of Cohen’s endorsement of an ethical prerogative, as well as his appeal to the institutional (...) framework of a ‘property-owning democracy’ in his elaboration of the precise institutional requirements of Rawlsian Institutionalist justice, and his related claim that Cohen’s rejection of Institutionalism involves an objectionable ‘double counting’ of the demands of justice. I argue that once we are clear about both the kind of justification that can be given for a prerogative within a plausible ethical theory, and about the key points of departure between Institutionalist views and their rivals, Cohen’s rejection of Institutionalism appears well-motivated, and Thomas’s claim that his view is guilty of double counting the demands of justice can be seen to be mistaken. (shrink)

This essay argues that the proffered grounds for Cohen's rejection of market relations – that they are sustained by the base motives of greed and fear – are unsound and also unnecessary to explain the maximising behaviour induced by those relations.

G.A. Cohen y John Rawls atribuyen a Karl Marx haberse adherido al principio libertarista de autopropiedad y una plena confianza en la abundancia ilimitada como solución a los defectos distributivos del socialismo. Asimismo, consideran que el comunismo marxiano está, en cierto sentido, más allá de la justicia. Contra estas posiciones, veremos que Marx rechaza la autopropiedad en términos normativos, que la predicción de plenitud material no es estrictamente marxiana, y que la doble valoración del comunismo —a la vez justo y (...) más allá de la justicia— no es totalmente consistente. (shrink)

En este artículo re-examinaremos la idea rawlsiana de que la estructura básica constituye el objeto primario de la justicia, a partir de la discusión planteada por G.A. Cohen. Veremos si, en efecto, las decisiones personales pueden quedar fuera del alcance de los principios de justicia o, en otras palabras, hasta qué punto la justicia es sólo un asunto institucional. Para ensayar una respuesta –siempre provisional– al problema del objeto de la justicia convocaremos al Principio Aristotélico propuesto por Rawls. En tal (...) sentido, diremos que, para mantener su postura ortodoxa sobre la exclusividad de la estructura básica como locus de la justicia, Rawls no sólo debería renunciar a su afirmación de que la fraternidad se expresa en el Principio de Diferencia –tal como lo demanda Cohen–, sino también a su pretensión de que la justicia como equidad sea compatible con la noción aristotélica de la justicia en tanto elusión de la pleonexia. (shrink)

It is commonly supposed that at least some states possess a moral right against external intervention in their domestic affairs and all human rights violations give members of the international community reasons to undertake preventive or remedial action against offending states. No state, however, currently protects or could reasonably be expected to protect its subjects’ human rights to a perfect degree. In view of this reality, many have found it difficult to explain how any existing or readily foreseeable state could (...) enjoy a moral right of nonintervention without denying the normative force of human rights. This article seeks to reconcile these apparently incompatible commitments by arguing that, in addition to acting in defense of human rights, outsiders must be appropriately responsive to individuals’ distinct and potentially countervailing interests in collective self-determination. I show that, under certain demanding but not unrealistic conditions, individuals’ interests in self-determination are of sufficient weight not simply to ground a judgment against intervention in particular cases but to generate arobust right of nonintervention on the part of some states that nevertheless fail to secure perfect protection of their subjects’ human rights. (shrink)