Chapter 2 of Rawls' Political Liberalism

This is a summarisation of chapter 2 of Rawls' Political Liberalism.

Chapter 2 of John Rawls’ Political Liberalism discusses the concept of a political conception of justice, and how it differs from comprehensive moral doctrine. Rawls argues that a political conception is limited to the basic structure of society and focuses on principles that can be reasonably acceptable to citizens who have different comprehensive views. Given that comprehensive views have scope so large that they extend far beyond the political conception, he avoids using comprehensive moral doctrine. Critics have underlined that in his A Theory of Justice, he had employed a comprehensive moral doctrine. To rectify this point, he was careful to avoid that the political conception that he attempts to arrive at is rather limited one in term of the scope that it covers. He also discusses the idea of an overlapping consensus where citizens can come to agree on certain principles of justice even if they have different comprehensive beliefs. Rawls concludes the chapter by stating that a political conception of justice should aim to ensure basic liberties and equality of basic rights and opportunities, while respecting the diversity of citizens’ comprehensive beliefs. 

Chapter 3 is here. 

Chapter 1 of John Rawls' Political Liberalism

Chapter 1 of Rawl's Political Liberalism introduces Rawls' main idea, which is to present a political conception of justice that can serve as a basis for a just and a stable society of free and equal citizens, even in a situation where people of various comprehensive philosophical, religious and moral doctrines live together. 

Rawls argues that such a political conception should not rely on any specific comprehensive worldview, but rather should be grounded in a shared public values and principles that can be reasonably justified to all citizens. He also introduces the idea of the original position, a hypothetical political circumstance in which citizens are made to choose principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance, a situation that denies the citizens knowledge of their social, economic and natural traits. The reason for positioning the citizens behind such a veil is to prevent them from being bias in arriving at the principles that would then serve as a guiding 'north star' for their social lives. This hypothetical political circumstance is then employed to derive the two principles of justice that Rawls claimed are most reasonable and just: the first principle of equal basic liberties, and the second principle of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. 

A few sentences about the difference principle. 

The difference principle states that, in a society, social and economic inequalities are just if and only if they are arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society as well. In other words, Rawls argues that inequalities in wealth, income, and social status are acceptable only if they are arranged in such a way as to work to the advantage of the people who are worst off. Rawls argues that this principle is necessary to ensure that the basic rights and liberties of all citizens are protected, and to ensure that the least advantaged members of society are not left behind. The difference principle is meant to be combined with the principle of fair equality of opportunity, which states that all citizens should have an equal chance to achieve positions of social and economic advantage, regardless of their background. Rawls argues that these two principles, when combined, provide a framework for a just and equal society.

Chapter 2 is here. 

A Prayer on Covid19

Dear Lord, Covid19 has been creating havoc in the lives of so many people. So many people have lost their near and dear ones; their livelihood have been disrupted. O Lord, we pray for a solution to this disruption. In your wisdom and mercy, O Lord, let people be able to rebuild their lives again. Dear Lord, let healthcare professionals and scientist be given wisdom to find effective measures to contain the germ causing Covid19. Dear Lord, let people be given prudence to prevent spreading of the infection from one person to another. May you bring healing on this earth that you have created. Let people on earth realise their mistakes, and O Lord, in the days to come, let such germs remain where they should be. We pray for the leaders that you grant them wisdom to take political measures to bring healing and to stabilize society broken by Covid19. Dear Lord, in Jesus name we pray that your eyes would look on us favorably and our lives would once more be free of Covid19. Amen. 

UGC's Exception Form

 

One can take a print out of this or make a form similar to this for use. 

NB: This form is used to renew the fellowship when it has lapsed for more than one year due to medical reason or something of that sort. A friend of mine went to the Scholarship Cell to obtain this form, but was told that this form would be available with the UGC. The UGC official said that this form would be available with the nodal officer of the respective university. Both sides did not seem to the have the form. So, for the sake of easy accessibility, I put up the form here. As of 2020, this form is valid. Hopefully, the format may remain the same for years to come.  I see no reason why it should change.         

When Consensual Actions are Illegal

In a liberal democracy or any state, actions that are harmful to others are illegal. So killing is illegal; it is a crime because it harms others. So is stealing a crime because it harms others. But what about actions of an agent that do not harm other people? 

Many of the actions that are not harmful to others are not considered a crime even if it is harmful to the self. This is because liberty is an important category for a liberal democracy. So many of our actions are not considered illegal even when they may be deemed immoral or unhealthy. For example, smoking is injurious to health. There is no dispute with this fact. Yet, in a liberal democracy, smoking would not be considered a crime. This is so because the person's liberty trumps over the potential injury smoking may cause to the agent. Many people in the society would also consider watching of pornography or consensual sex outside of marriage immoral. But again these won't be consider illegal because the liberty/freedom of the agent trumps over certain other people's idea of morality. However, there are certain actions that may be consensual or is chosen by the agent for herself/himself and yet is illegal or must be considered a crime. What are some of those actions? 

Consensual cannibalism is an example when an action is consensual and yet is considered a crime. There is a story of a person who offered himself to be eaten when someone sent out an invitation to eat a human being. The two agree that it was consensual and there is no coercion involved at all. Yet, the cannibal was arrested. You can google or read the story here: Victim of cannibal agreed to be eaten | World news | The Guardian. 

Pedophilic action is another consensual action that deserves criminalization. 

On a slightly different note -- because here it is not about two individuals choices, but an action chosen by an agent for herself -- one may impose some form of punitive measure for driving without helmet or seatbelt. Here, the agent may not harm anyone just by driving on the road without wearing helmet or a seatbelt. Even if there was an accident, it may harm the agent iherelf, not anyone else. Yet, punitive measure for not wearing seatbelt or helmet is fair. 

Political Secularism Vs. Social Secularisation

When we say 'secularism', it is often understood in different ways by different people. For example, in India there is this idea among some people that secularism entails respect of all religions. So some these folks say that no one should say this religion is bad/wrong; people need to accept that all religions are equally valid and no religion is more correct than others. Now this is a wrong understanding of secularism. 

In order to remove confusion, we need to differentiate between political secularism and social secularisation. Let me explain what these mean. 

Political secularism does have some sense of respect of all religions. But what is meant here is that the state should not discriminate any citizen on the basis of religion; the state should not say people of this religion cannot vote or people of that religion cannot have access to justice in the Court etc. Political secularism implies that the state is not going to discriminate any citizen on the basis of his or her religion. (As an individual I might say this belief of religion A is wrong or that practice of religion B is morally bad. But that's my opinion, not the state's opinion. As part of freedom of conscience that any citizen has, I can have my negative or positive opinion about this religion or that religion. But the state is not going to discriminate religious believers on the basis on his or her religion.) This is an essential aspect of political secularism. 

But political secularism also implies separation of religious institution and state. Religious leaders will hold the rein of power in religious institution; while political leaders will hold the rein of power in political institution. This is the second aspect of political secularism. 

The third aspect of political secularism is that citizens have freedom of religion. This is closely related to the second point. This says that since the state has no state religion, as religious institution and state are separate, citizens are free to choose this religion or that religion or no religion. The state will not dictate citizens' religious belief. 

Social secularisation on the other hand is the transformation or state of society that is devoid of religious values. For example, if the atheists are successful in converting all the citizens into their way of belief, then that society will be a highly secularised society. 

If the state is politically secular, won't the society also be a secularised/irreligious one? Not necessarily. Apart from the state, there are other institutions. One is family. The state can't dictate what religion a family must follow. So families can choose to be religious. Also there is civil society, and this includes clubs, churches, NGOs, Gurudwara etc. These civil society need not be irreligious; they can be religious too. Freedom of religion that political secularism offers allows other institutions to be religious within the bound of public order.