I take Sebastian's point about the reasons for Rawls's emphasis on toleration over justice and equality in the short term. And it is perfectly credible that Lincoln's own Whiggish gradualism inspired that particular balance. Remember that Rawls used to team-teach a seminar on Lincoln with David Herbert Donald at Harvard. Bad as he knew slavery was, Lincoln was willing to tolerate it so long as it could be contained and eventually die a natural death, in the interest of preventing war and preserving constitutional legality (which he may have thought were demonstrably greater evils). Without necessarily agreeing, we can well understand such a choice, harsh as it is on millions of human beings who must suffer infinite indignity in the meantime.
Kant would have a very hard time accepting such a choice. Mill might agree to it, with considerable reluctance, if the numbers worked out overwhelmingly in its favor (remember, he's a rule Utilitarian, so slavery is out prima facie). Aristotle (updated with a bit of Kantian egalitarianism to acknowledge owning other people as a vice) might be more willing than the others to support the extreme tolerant approach, especially if we conceive it (a Lincoln did) in terms of culture and community. Both A. and L. understand how resistant ways of life (and their operating systems) are to dramatic change, and both accept the critical importance of polis for the formation of personhood.
It would be helpful, however, as we contemplate the moral acceptability of such a compromise, to have historical examples showing how and whether it works. When has the tolerance and containment of a great, soul-crushing evil actually led to its demise?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
One interesting example occurs to me: containment and international political, moral, and economic pressure did in fact eventually overcome South African apartheid. Perhaps this is the sort of thing Rawls had in mind?
Post a Comment