Mutually Beneficial Coercion: A Critique of the Coercive Approach to Distributive Justice
- 37 Downloads
According to the coercive approach to distributive justice, the coercive nature of the political state requires justification in the form of distributive benefits owed only to members of the state (e.g., citizens). In this paper I analyze and dismiss traditional objections to the coercive approach, and I proceed to raise two novel objections. First, according to my equivocation objection, I contend that the coercive approach’s leap from coercive burdens to certain distributive benefits is based on an equivocation. When this equivocation is clarified, the conclusion of the coercive approach is undermined. Attempts to circumvent the equivocation inevitably lead to my second objection, the coercion as cooperation objection. Through this objection it becomes clear that the coercive approach collapses into the cooperative approach, an approach to distributive justice that may change the scope of distributional obligations beyond that of the political state.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Charles R. Beitz, ‘Justice and International Relations’, in Thomas Pogge and Darrel Moellendorf (eds.), Global Justice: Seminal Essays (St. Paul: Paragon House, 2008): pp. 21–48.Google Scholar
- Charles R. Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979, Revised Afterward, 1999).Google Scholar
- Michael Blake, Justice and Foreign Policy (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
- Michael Blake and Mathias Risse, ‘Is There a Human Right to Free Movement? Immigration and Original Ownership of the Earth’, SKG Working Paper (December 2006): pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
- Michael Blake and Patrick Taylor Smith, ‘International Distributive Justice’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed in 2017.Google Scholar
- Ronald Dworkin, ‘What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Resources’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (4) (1981): pp. 185–246.Google Scholar
- A.J. Julius, ‘Nagel’s Atlas’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 34 (2) (Spring 2006): pp. 176–92.Google Scholar
- Martha Nussbaum, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
- Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls (New York: Cornell University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition) (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
- John Rawls, ‘The Basic Structure as Subject’, American Philosophical Quarterly 14 (2) (April 1977): pp. 159–165.Google Scholar
- John Rawls, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
- ‘Somalia Country Profile’, The World Bank, accessed October 10, 2017, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/Views/Reports/ReportWidgetCustom.aspx?Report_Name=CountryProfile&Id=b450fd57&tbar=y&dd=y&inf=n&zm=n&country=SOM.
- ‘UNICEF Somalia Report 2016’, UNICEF, accessed October 20, 2017, https://www.unicef.org/somalia/SOM_resources_annualreport_2016.pdf.