Chandran Kukathas

Are there any Cultural Rights

I shall advance the thesis that if there are any moral rights at all, it follows that there is at least one natural right, the equal right of all men to be free. H.L.A. Hart, “Are There Any Natural Rights?”

Liberalism, Communitarianism, and Political Community

The primary concern of this essay is with the question “What is a political community?” This question is important in its own right. Arguably, the main purpose of political philosophy is to provide an account of the nature of political association and, in so doing, to describe the relations that hold between the individual and the state. The question is also important, however, because of its centrality in contemporary debate about liberalism and community.

Explaining Moral Variety

Reflection on the variety of forms of social life has long been a source of moral skepticism. The thought that there are many radically different social systems, each of which colors the way its members think about moral and political questions, has been thought by many moral philosophers to undermine confidence in our belief that our way of looking at-or even posing-these questions is the correct one. The fact of cultural variety is held to reduce, if not eliminate altogether, the possibility of moral criticism of the practices of other societies. This thought is not a recent one; it is implicit, for example, in an observation made in David Humes “A Dialogue,” when he writes: There are no manners so innocent or reasonable, but may be rendered odious or ridiculous, if measured by a standard, unknown to the persons; especially, if you employ a little art or eloquence, in aggravating some circumstances, and extenuating others, as best suits the purpose of your discourse.

Education and citizenship in diverse societies

Abstract The question of the states role in the control of sponsorship of education is addressed in the light of liberal political principles designed to keep peace and enforce toleration in culturally diverse societies. Some contemporary, self-described liberal philosophers argue for a much more substantial educational role for the state than liberal principles will really allow. Brian Barrys argument for that role assumes that the state can prescribe answers to controversial questions regarding the truth and the good life in which a truly liberal state would take no interest. Stephen Macedo is more accommodating to religious diversity than Barry, but his argument fails because of his rashly optimistic view of the states effectiveness in promoting civic virtue and the possibility of reconciling that role with fundamental liberal values. Liberal regimes do not depend on civic education, even under conditions of diversity. Their life-blood is toleration and dissent rather than the widespread diffusion of civic virtue.

On David Miller on immigration control

David Miller offers a liberal realist defence of immigration control grounded in cosmopolitan ideals of self-determination, fairness and integration. But a commitment to liberal values requires a commitment to more open borders than he admits. A part of the problem is that the notion of open borders Miller criticises is under-theorised. A deeper problem is that immigration control itself is inconsistent with important liberal values – notably the values of freedom and equality. This is a concern because it is the freedom and equality not only of immigrants but also of citizens that is threatened by the closing of borders.

On Sen on comparative justice

Against scepticism from thinkers including John Rawls and Thomas Nagel about the appropriateness of justice as the concept through which global ethical concerns should be approached, Amartya Sen argues that the problem lies not with the idea of justice, but with a particular approach to thinking of justice, namely a transcendental approach. In its stead Sen is determined to offer an alternative systematic theory of justice, namely a comparative approach, as a more promising foundation for a theory of ‘global justice.’ But in the end Sen offers no such thing. He does not develop a theory of justice and this is all to the good; for if values are plural in the way Sen suggests, then justice is not a master idea but one value among many, and it should be neither the first virtue of social institutions, nor the notion that frames all our reflections on ethical and political life.

Language Rights and Political Theory

Language Rights and Political Theory. Edited by Will Kymlicka and Alan Patten. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 368p.

The Ethics of Nationalism By Margaret Moore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 272p.

99.00 cloth,

45.00.

24.95 paper. Language rights and language policy are significant issues in contemporary politics and have become an important subject for political theorists today. Yet until now, there has been no major work or edited volume dealing with language rights from the standpoint of normative political theory. Will Kymlicka and Alan Patten have put together a volume of essays to remedy this situation. According to the editors of this valuable collection, linguistic diversity has emerged as a major source of controversy in a number of distinct political contexts. In their comprehensive introduction to the topic, and the volume, they identify these contexts as including at least five areas: Eastern Europe, regional languages/minority nationalisms, immigrant integration, European Union/transnational democracy, and indigenous languages/biodiversity. As political theorists in recent years have explored ideas of citizenship, nationhood, multiculturalism, and deliberative democracy, it has become increasingly evident, they say, that political theories often rest on presuppositions about peoples language repertoires. It is important that these presuppositions, and their implications, be explored and subjected to critical scrutiny. The aim of this collection is to do precisely this. In the end, it is entirely successful in its ambitions. The chapters are of high quality and deal with issues that are important. Anyone presently interested in working on language rights in political theory should begin here.

Rawls: 'A Theory of Justice' and Its Critics

This fine study purports to offer “a normative theory of nationalism.” Such a theory is needed, the author claims, because most of the literature on the ethics of secession proceeds on the mistaken assumption that the normative problem of state breakup is best addressed by applying established liberal arguments or values to the issue at hand. In fact, however, it makes little sense to derive a theory of secession in this way, rather than by considering directly the kinds of normative claims secessionists make. These are nationalist claims. We need, moreover, to recognize that well-known accounts of nationalism, such as those offered by Ernest Gellner, for whom nationalism is a political principle that holds that the political and national unit should be congruent, are inadequate—either because they include too much, or because, as in the case of Gellner (Nations and Nationalism, 1983), they associate it with a particular set of demands or principles. Nationalism, according to Margaret Moore, should be understood as “a normative argument that confers moral value on national membership, and on the past and future existence of the nation, and identifies the nation with a particular homeland or part of the globe” (p. 5). Once we have understood this, we will be in a better position to understand the key policies and demands of nationalists, including their occasional (and only occasional) demands for national self-determination, and to understand the normative limits of nationalism. And we will then be in a better position to understand the nature, and defensibility, of national self-determination, and of secession in particular.