Debate: Legitimate injustice: A response to Wellman

In his article, “The Space between Justice and Legitimacy”, Kit Wellman offers a novel account of the relationship political philosophy's two central concepts.1 He argues that states can be legitimate yet impose many unjust laws policies. This is true, he suggests, because legitimacy should understood as claim about wide proportionality.2 Just country's war widely proportionate overall, contain instances injustice, (that is, legitimate) fair amount injustice. But although thinks injustice in this sense, real pervasive phenomenon, goes on to argue doesn't have much practical relevance with regard It make it permissible enforce laws, nor does generate an obligation comply laws. Like Wellman, I think pervasive. don't share view phenomenon and, result, also agree him implications Contra state officials act permissibly when they but law, rights against being interfered do so. Before we begin, will help clarify what's at stake labeling legitimate. There are competing conceptions literature, but, says, “virtually everyone agrees least entitles coerce its constituents”.3 Following assume minimum, determining whether Other things equal, authority presumptively permitted constituents some ways illegitimate authorities not do. believes unjustly, defends by appeal particular notion proportionality. morally launch even foresee our troops commit crimes during course, though know sometimes commits both cases, weigh good achieved if proceed all harms or costs caused. Provided goods sufficiently great outweigh costs, proposed course action institution defended basis benefits relative costs.4 As puts it, “Because perform such incredibly valuable functions … worth moral costs”.5 Wellman's view, simply what for When provides (including injustices commits), innovative way thinking justice legitimacy. correct. ethics self-defense war, standard determine caused alternative doing nothing.6 Suppose only defend one innocent person from having her legs unjustly broken throwing grenade kill bystanders. The proportionate, so (two people killed) worse than nothing (one person's get broken). If, however, these were reversed—if meant killed, whereas broken—then might conclude proportionate. If use proportionality assess state's legitimacy, need engage similar comparison. difficulty, unlike harmful contemplate performing, it's less clear mean ask, “are created nothing?”. How understand benchmark “doing nothing”? To see why remain convinced gap exists, let us return contrast slave-owner who forces slaves build pyramid prime minister Norway. slave-owner, there no question would required immediately free my slaves, other me pyramid. Norway extraordinary power unilaterally dismantle government, feel obligated so.7 Dismantle. A thus legitimate, government order prevent halt commits. look like test. First, supposed imagine occurs dismantled. Maybe consider realistically occur country apparatus suddenly ceased exist. terrible. places, civil ethnic cleansing consequence dismantling government. disband very, very bad. Even brutal authoritarian regime preferable cleansing, surely legitimate; give permission citizens independently merely worst conditions earth.8 One problem trying conceptualize species almost never face binary choice current institutions else total absence those institutions. Consider Southern United States Jim Crow era. options (1) retain existing racist institutions, (2) descent into extremely dangerous form anarchy, possible option (2). But, weren't options. Radically reforming them was feasible option, fact part explanation been appropriate baseline testing must alternatives rather all. military intervention equally effective costly diplomatic available, dictator cannot justify more just arrangement within reach.9 statement here puzzling reasons. isn't how has standardly conceptualized war. I've already explained, judgments typically made comparing given harm-imposition nothing. entire set alternatives, relevant different judgment, namely, necessity. Philosophers working instance meet condition necessary. Although deal disagreement exactly necessity condition, widespread agreement potential alternatives.10 Killing wrongful aggressor, example, necessary defender's painlessly rendering aggressor unconscious. Thus, matter dispute, most accepted picture, separate constraints force. permissible, generally believed must, among things, satisfy constraints. All Alternatives. net balance currently every alternative. test helpful seek explain any could ever It's true which reformed eliminate without becoming ways. that, state, status quo alternative, illegitimate. stark, since implication hypothetical far still long single law feasibly reformed. conclusions seeks defend. reply entirely devoid institutions; realistically, best efforts design sustain always features. involves shifting “feasible” “probable” “likely”. term contested,11 suspect commonly used refer achieving outcome resources technological limitations. changing regulating gun ownership US clearly feasible. Of unlikely robust control legislation enacted reasons ideology self-interest. Suppose, then, take Alternatives likely obtain. then vastly lower bar highly become just. interpretation, fairly obvious. often case hold want reform them. might, ruled tyrant refuses relinquish rules violently suppressing dissent. On render rule forming settled disposition hang through means. result reductio interpretation sum, idea work seems suggest—Dismantle—is too weak standard. weak, part, ignores state. We include floats—All Alternatives—creates either unacceptably high low one. focus high—no meets it. probable low: bad actors themselves refusing minimal standards wanted to. each answer “no”. So, perpetrated interesting consequences attempts impose. special ground duty obey protected right unjustly. disagree three questions, first. expect reasonable justice. By smart, sensible people, clearly, aren't driven self-interest prejudice, committed treat others fairly, matters justice, including difficult questions “What rates income tax justice?” “Should freedom expression extend protect deny Holocaust promote anti-Semitism?”. requirements imply correct answers indeterminate—there may cases disagreement. requires, sort democratic process resolve Indeed, equal (and positive) say resolving disagreements disregard decisions whenever refusal participate terms people. clear: I'm suggesting unreasonable views justice—those are, beyond pale, violations core liberal freedoms—have implemented selected process. reasonable—all represent plausible interpretations requires—and type, egalitarian disagreements. Obviously, said briefest sketch, details filled in. sketched inconsistent above, first question: unjustly? sake argument, theory includes expansive principle speech, interference hate speech—for Nazis wish march chant anti-Semitic slurs Jewish neighborhoods. issue over disagree, after process, community enacts prohibits certain forms Nazis' march. requires giving opportunity exercise directed (within boundaries reasonable), acting unjustly—failing respect regarding distribution power. So decline prohibition march, However, democratically prohibiting contrary another requirement whatever does. agent's P5. results selection policy substantively unjust. Therefore, sure premises argument reject. reject P1, denying implausible. credible suppose self-interest, irrationality. suppose, contemporary Kantians do, substantive issues social distributive largely indeterminate.14 am specific indeterminate, perfectly consistent P1. P1 makes modest determinate doubt democracy ask here, though, hard voting (or deliberating, discussing, voting, you prefer) magically change deontic status. impermissible pyramids, instance, process?15 sincere beliefs majority action, unreasonable? strikes natural mistake majority's judgment changes action.16 taken rejection P2, explicitly considering tread carefully. mere Φ-ing not, own, affect Φ-ing. move permissibility. Instead claims require, mechanism resolution. moves permissibility via assumption (P4) permissible. My rhetorical resolution worry, depends misunderstanding value procedural incarnations side-constraints respected, values promoted democrat's establishes governance, justly additional side-constraint, showing outweighs, overrides, undercuts imperative nonprocedural rights.17 passage points out something democrats ignore—the procedures suffice, show scope governance extends cover decisions. operate notoriously tricky. Most obviously, happens conflict? Some proponents side-constraint conceptually impossible. Claims their nature, come conflict.18 accept; sharply odds commonsense morality. (a) content sparse, possibility conflicts arising, (b) kind specificationism apparent conflict claims, circumstances, turns valid compelling options, lack space lay here. noting conflict—he asserts view. accept conflict, easily P2. And emphasizing revisionary counterintuitive P2 stuffing ballot boxes people's votes, provided ensuring truly policies enacted. P3 uncontroversial accepted. P4 uncontroversial: minority philosophers situations agent wrongly regardless she Entering debate I'll along others, true: choices.19 P5 seem controversial Wellman: second third won't pursue deeply puzzling, skepticism expresses capacity recent philosophy provide adequate phenomenon. can't, argued, light delivers. instead arises complex multi-dimensional nature itself. principles apply arises. because, situations, avoid fact, contra significant conduct politics. Wellman's, work—it otherwise impermissible, public where threaten infringe Nothing constitutes concerning precedence correct, place present argument. For comments discussion, grateful Peter de Marneffe, Rebecca Stone, Paul Weithman, Leif Wenar, anonymous referee. None relevant. interest article. author declares human approval needed study. data included