A Critique of Michael Goodhart's Critique of John Rawls Constructivism
A Critique of Michael Goodhart's Critique of John Rawls Constructivism
By: Nathan Peter-Grzeszczak Buhr
In his paper Constructing Global Justice: A Critique, Michael Goodhart reviews the “global constructionist procedure” developed by John Rawls. Goodhart believes it is unhelpful to focus on an ideal of Global Justice, as Rawls proposes with his “Veil of Ignorance” exercise, but prefers we work towards making improvements to the world in its current state. A term that Goodhart uses throughout this paper is “manifest injustice” which he describes as acts or situations that all parties can readily agree are wrong and unjust. Once an injustice is deemed to be a manifest injustice the global community is then able to rectify the wrong with total consensus. One of the main exercises that Goodhart brings some interesting counterpoints to Rawls, but he is wrong to state that the Veil of Ignorance is not a productive exercise and that it is not helpful to focus on an ideal theory of Global Justice.
In an article titled “The Law of People” John Rawls summarizes and condenses a few points from his book A Theory of Justice. In his book Rawls discusses a theoretical tool that he calls “The Veil of Ignorance” which is an exercise designed to eliminate bias from current personal status, wealth, gender, ethnicity, and other such variables when considering issues of Global Justice. The point of the exercise is to help people to see inequalities in our current arrangement, as well as help people empathize with the perspectives and positions of others. Without using the Veil of Ignorance individuals are tempted to shore up or reinforce their own position or interests by advocating for a system that serves them best. By looking at the social, economic, and political order from the view of the disadvantaged we are able to see the need for more equality. The basic rights agreed upon in the veil of ignorance should be extended to all in the civil realm.
In the beginning of his paper Goodhart lays out his objectives and explains how his paper will fit into the ongoing debate about global construction. He feels that some philosophers have already made good arguments against Rawls but believes that his argument is still needed. Goodhart states, “while some critics have pointed out flaws in or limits to global constructivist reasoning, there has so far been no systemic attention to methodological and epistemological issues surrounding Rawlsian Global Constructivism”(Goodhart 2012, 2).
Goodhart raises the issue of compliance with agreed upon ideals of global justice. He is concerned that even if countries can come to a sort of general understanding about what is injustice and make laws reflecting those understandings there is no guarantee that there will be compliance. In the words of Goodhart “ideal theory treats non-compliance as a problem of deviation from principles of justice. When deviation is the norm, the parties cannot reckon the likely effects of various conceptions of justice and thus cannot make a rational choice among them”(Goodhart 2012, 12). I am sure that Rawls and Goodhart could both agree that a global culture of compliance to agreement such as international treaties, acts, and other such diplomacy would make issues of Global Justice simpler. If countries honored the international law in all cases this would dramatically cut down on the amount of injustices committed. Goodhart is right in bringing up the issue of non-compliance but this does not directly address the issue of Global Justice theory but more an issue of corruption and dishonesty among politicians. While this may be the reality it is not the ideal. The argument that Goodhart brings is faulty because he is questing why we should have any international rule, law, agreement, or ideal if both parties intend to break it. In an ideal world all parties would follow international agreements and laws without threat of punishment or penalty but we are not at that point. Because of this a more comprehensive, pragmatic, and accountable system of international governance needs to be created or retooled to keep nations from defaulting on international laws and agreements. Because there are many benefits and advantages for some individuals in certain countries in breaking international laws for their own advancement, said individuals will always be tempted to. This does not mean that an ideal should not be focused on, for if the rules are seen to be fair and balanced and truly designed and adopted by all parties without pressure or coercion, then the rules are more likely to be followed.
In order to recognize when a situation is, in the terminology of Goodhart, “distorted” there must be an ideal presented as a means to measure this distortion. Without a standard of some kind the task of judging what is and is not Global Justice and what is or is not an injustice is quite difficult. The ideal functions as a point of reference from which to navigate from.
When building a new house it is important to have an organized plan as to how the house will be constructed. When setting off for a road trip it is important to have a map charting out your path and destination. Why would we discourage this type of logical and rational thought in the discussion of Global Justice? Goodhart states, “ideal theorizing, as exemplified in cosmopolitan and social liberal constructivism, leads to distortions in our thinking about justice, again raising doubts about the epistemological and normative conclusions of these approaches”(Goodhart 2012, 2). Without considering what the ideal is or should be how are we able to begin working in the proper direction? Goodhart is telling us to set out on a path and fight “manifest injustice” when we see, while providing minimal guidelines or scale to use in our evaluation. This leaves the decision of what is and what is not Global Justice up to interpretation, which may not be widely agreed upon. After using the veil of ignorance all parties should agree on what the ideal for global justice should be. This makes the veil of ignorance a superior tool for creating consensus.
Goodhart is calling for the use of an ideal in determining Global Justice to be replaced by the use of “manifest injustice”. By proposing this Goodhart is merely substituting the concept of manifest injustice to function, in the same capacity as an ideal. He expects “manifest injustice” to provide a standard of sorts for the international community to judge what is and is not injustice. This may work for some cases where the injustice is so extreme in nature that is it beyond obvious, but there will be many cases where conscientious and agreement is not attained, resulting in inaction. This inaction of the global community is unacceptable and would lead to some cases of injustice remaining uncorrected and ignored.
One example of a situation where a possible “manifest injustice” is currently taking place is the presence of illegal immigrants within the borders of the United States. This situation is quite contentious among both United States citizens and illegal immigrants and a solution is not widely agreed upon. Some would see the work that undocumented laborers do in the United States as an injustice towards those American citizens who are here legally. In this perspective the undocumented workers are taking the jobs that rightfully and legally belong to United States citizens. An opposing point of view would acknowledge the injustice being committed against the illegal immigrants. These immigrants are in a situation of exploitation and have no rights provided by the government of the United States that does not acknowledge their status within its borders. Employers are free to take advantage of undocumented laborers as workplace safety laws, minimum wage, social security and other benefits and protections do not cover them. The United States government grants these benefits and protections to citizen workers but not to all workers within the nation.
This situation is full of nuance and neither side holds the complete high moral ground. Both arguments represent a group of people who have had an injustice committed against them, but which injustice takes precedent over the other? Without agreeing upon what is and is not injustice the global community will be left to debate every instance of injustice before action can be taken. This will no doubt lead to a slow, delayed, and inefficient system of combating global injustice. In using the Veil of Ignorance we can see that the larger injustice is being committed against the undocumented workers because their situation is much more vulnerable and precarious when compared to that of United States citizens. The Veil of Ignorance is providing the ideal of Global Justice that we must appeal to and therefore recognize that the basic human rights of the undocumented workers are being violated.
According to Goodhart, Rawls is attempting to impose his own liberal viewpoints through the Veil of Ignorance, and that the veil of ignorance is more biased then he states it to be. To challenge the civil and religious systems of non-liberal societies, which have hierarchy naturally built into them would be un-liberal and against liberal toleration. In Goodhart’s opinion this creates a situation where a flawed tool is being used to construct an ideal that is then also faulty. In defending Rawls, the Veil of Ignorance is not something that only liberals can agree with but all people, therefore it is not just representing the views of liberals. For example those holding a pragmatic, utilitarian viewpoint in which the happiness of the majority is of upmost importance would have to reassess their views when considering the Veil of Ignorance exercise. Even if an injustice committed against ones self is to the benefit of the majority does not make the experience of suffering an injustice any less unpleasant. Therefore even a utilitarian can agree to the conclusions delivered though the use of veil of ignorance. It is better to agree on a set if ideals and to have conscientious before proceeding, than to be working in multiple directions. In order to know where Global Justice is going we must think of the destination.
If given the choice most people would choose to have as much freedom and equality in their social and civil arrangement as possible. The Veil of Ignorance provides this clarity of though in an objective way. This is not the belief of one person but of all people across national boundaries, languages, and cultures. By managing to produce a reliable and dependable outcome the Veil of Ignorance shows that people strive to live with common human rights. This is not a subjective exercise as Goodhart attempts to label it.
In some cases individuals may believe in a hierarchy as part of their religious or spiritual beliefs. Citizens should have the right to accept hierarchy in their religious practices if they choose to do so because it is their religious belief, but hierarchy should not be present in the secular social arrangement of civilian life. In order for this distinction to be made, separation between church and state must be in place. To allow hierarchy to be present in the social arrangement by appealing to religious beliefs for justification is unfair to those in the society who do not subscribe to that religion and its belief system.
Goodhart contends that “one particular worrisome side-effect of ideal theorizing: its tendency to distort our thinking about problems of justice and injustice. Rawlsian global constructivist reasoning, with its emphasis on modeling an ICS is particularly prone to such distortions” (Goodhart 2012, 18). Goodhart is concerned that Rawls is leaving out some important variables in his theories that are present in the world today. In the opinion of Goodhart, by leaving out these variables the theories of Rawls are not applicable to the actual world and therefore will not improve global justice. One example that Goodhart points to is the exclusion of race or gender from the theory, which leaves those factors out of the scope of the discussion. While it is important to keep in mind how a theory can become enacted and not to detach the though process behind a theory from current reality, establishing goals is more important than planning out every step towards said goal. Goodhart is condemning Rawls for thinking about issues of Global Justice in an abstract way.
As I have shown in this paper Goodhart has brought some interesting points of contestation to Rawls and his theories on Global Justice. In the end the ideas of Rawls still stand as excellent examples of philosophical though on the topic of Global Justice.
Works Cited:
Goodhart, Michael “Constructing Global Justice: A Critique” Ethics & Global Politics 5, no.1 (2012): 1-26.
