On reading Rawls
I’ve been struggling through John Rawls’ epic Political Liberalism, and while I can’t pretend to understand all its subtleties, I’ve been moved by the simplicity of its major point. He defines a comprehensive doctrine as a system that provides a set of ethics and morals, ranging from religious comprehensive doctrines (e.g., Catholic theology) to philosophical comprehensive doctrines (e.g., utilitarianism). His main theme is that “the diversity of reasonable comprehensive … doctrines found in modern democratic societies is not a mere historical condition that may soon pass away; it is a permanent feature of the public culture of democracy.” Such an obvious thought, but one that manages to redefine the scope of political philosophy!
Strangely, however, Rawls doesn’t really discuss international relations. Indeed, he goes to great lengths to say that his scheme cannot be applied to relationships between peoples. I’m skeptical, and part of me wonders if Rawls lost the courage to follow his ideas to their logical conclusion.
The question, to put it in Rawlsian lingo, is whether an overlapping consensus exists among different peoples (who often have radically different comprehensive doctrines) on basic political matters. I think something like this forming over the past half-century, slowly, embryonically, but forming. What else then is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions, if not expression of some shared political conception? How can so many people be espousing thoughts on “international human rights law,” if there isn’t something there? Granted, there is no international “law” in the strict sense, as there is no controlling legal authority (thank goodness, given the UN’s current structure). Still, what we see is the process of building a consensus. Ironically, the US government, which fought so hard to create the UN after the Second World War, now is frantically trying to stop this consensus from forming more fully, lest it reduce US hegemony somewhat.
