Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Problem of Historical Rectification for Rawlsian Theory

  • Published:
Res Publica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we claim that Rawls’s theory is compatible with the absence of rectification of extremely important historical injustices within a given society. We hold that adding a new principle to justice-as-fairness may amend this problem. There are four possible objections to our claim: First, that historical rectification is not required by justice. Second, that, even when historical rectification is a matter of justice, it is not a matter of distributive justice, so that Rawls’s theory is justified in leaving it unaddressed. Third, that dealing with historical injustice is outside of the scope of ideal theory, so that even when historical rectification is required by justice, Rawls’s theory starts with the assumption that no such historical injustice has occurred. Fourth, that while historical injustice is within the scope of Rawls’s theory, there is no need for further principles of justice to deal with it, so that the correct regulation of the principles of justice-as-fairness would ensure the rectification of all relevant historical injustices of a particular society. While we offer several arguments against the first and second objections, we address the last two at length and show that both fail.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdel-Nour, Farid. 2003. National responsibility. Political Theory 31: 693–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abizadeh, Arash. 2004. Historical truth, national myths, and liberal democracy: On the coherence of liberal nationalism. The Journal of Political Philosophy 12: 291–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agger, Inger, and Søren Jensen. 1996. Trauma and healing under state terrorism. London: Zed books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backer, David, et al. 1995. Therapy with the victims of political repression in Chile: The challenges of social reparations. In Transitional justice: How emerging democracies reckon with former regimes, ed. Neil Kritz, 583–592. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boettcher, James. 2009. Race, ideology, and ideal theory. Metaphilosophy 40: 259–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borneman, John. 2005. Public apologies as performative redress. SAIS Review of International Affairs 25: 53–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, Allen. 2004. Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt, Daniel. 2009. Rectifying international injustice: Principles of compensation and restitutions between nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Greiff, Pablo (ed.). 2006. The handbook of reparation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, Jon. 2004. Closing the books: Transitional theory in historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, Lisa. 2012. Burdened societies and transitional justice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15: 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gledhill, James. 2012. Rawls and realism. Social Theory and Practice 38: 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grandin, Greg & Thomas Miller (eds.). 2007. Truth commissions: State terror, history and memory. Radical History Review 97:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamber, Brandon. 2010. Transforming societies after political violence: Truth, reconciliation, and mental Health. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, Aaron. 2005. Constructing justice from existing practice: Rawls and the status-quo. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33: 281–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, Christine. 1996. Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kutz, Christopher. 2004. Justice in reparations: The cost of memory and the value of talk. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32: 277–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawford-Smith, Holly. 2010. Debate: Ideal theory—a reply to Valentini. The Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 357–368.

  • Lykes, M.Brinton, and Marcie Mersky. 2006. Reparations and mental health: Psychological interventions towards healing, human agency, and rethreading social realities. In The handbook of reparations, ed. Pablo de Greiff, 589–622. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, Andrew. 2010. Rawlsian theory and the circumstances of politics. Political Theory 38: 658–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Lukas. 2006. Reparation and symbolic restitution. Journal of Social Philosophy 37: 406–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, Charles. 2005. Ideal theory as ideology. Hypatia 20: 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1999a. A theory of justice, revised edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1999b. The law of peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness. A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, Ingrid. 2008. Ideal theory in theory and practice. Social Theory and Practice 34: 341–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher, George. 1981. Ancient wrongs and modern rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10: 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher, George. 1997. Approximate justice: Studies in non-ideal theory. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shue, Henry. 1975. Liberty and self-respect. Ethics 85: 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, John. 2010. Ideal and non-ideal theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs 38: 5–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stemplowska, Zofia. 2008. What’s ideal about ideal theory? Social Theory and Practice 34: 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Robert. 2009. Rawlsian affirmative action. Ethics 119: 476–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Janna. 2001. Historical injustice and reparation: Justifying the claims of descendants. Ethics 112: 114–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentini, Laura. 2009. On the apparent paradox of ideal theory. The Journal of Political Philosophy 17: 332–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdeja, Ernesto. 2006. Reparations in democratic transitions. Res Publica 12: 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdeja, Ernesto. 2009. Unchopping a tree: Reconciliation in the aftermath of political violence. Temple: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, Jeremy. 1992. Superseding historic injustice. Ethics 103: 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Margaret. 2006. Moral repair: Reconstructing moral relationships after wrongdoing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wiens, David. 2012. Prescribing institutions without ideal theory. The Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zalaquett, José. 1999. Truth, justice and reconciliation: Lessons for the international community. In Comparative peace processes in Latin America, ed. Cynthia Arnson, 341–362. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Elizabeth Anderson, Luis Camacho, Robert Jubb, Claudio López-Guerra, Catherine Lu, Veronique Munoz-Dardé, Carlos Pereda, Tom Porter, Faviola Rivera, Laura Valentini, Leif Wenar, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Espindola.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Espindola, J., Vaca, M. The Problem of Historical Rectification for Rawlsian Theory. Res Publica 20, 227–243 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-014-9244-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-014-9244-z

Keywords

Navigation