Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 2002.
I. Introduction
- The problem of the traditional picture of political landscape
“Our traditional picture of the political landscape views political principles as falling somewhere on a single line, stretching from left to right. According to this traditional picture, people on the left believe in equality, and hence endorse some form of socialism, while those on the right believe in freedom, and hence endorse some form of free-market capitalism.” (1)
“But it is increasingly inadequate. First, it ignores a number of important issues.” (2) Regarding the case of feminism, the traditional picture leaves no room for discussing justice in the traditionally female spheres of home and family. As for communitarianism, theories on the single left-right line evaluate political institutions against their ahistorical standards, which communitarians find wrong since they believe political judgement is a matter of interpreting traditions and practices.
Secondly, the project of developing a single comprehensive theory of justice cannot succeed under the assumption built into the traditional picture, namely that different theories have different foundational values. The picture suggests the left believes in equality and the right in freedom. Each of the new theories is also assumed to appeal to a different ultimate value. And there is no way to argue for one ultimate value over another, hence no hope to rationally resolve the disagreements among those.
In this book Kymlicka wants to explore Dworkin’s suggestion that every plausible political theory has the same ultimate value, which is equality in its broad sense — the idea of treating people as equals. The seemingly conflicting differences are the result of various interpretations of the preconditions for equality, be it income, wealth, opportunities, or liberties.
This egalitarian interpretation of political theories is potentially better able to accommodate both the diversity and unity of contemporary political philosophy. If each theory is attempting to define the social, economic, and political conditions under which the members of the community are treated as equals, then we might be able to show that one of the theories does a better job living up to the standard that they all recognize. And that means people would be arguing on the same wavelength, so to speak, even those who do not fit on the traditional left-right continuum.
- Notes on methodological assumptions
Kymlicka notes his several methodological assumptions. One of them is that there is a fundamental continuity between moral and political philosophy, in at least two respects. First, moral philosophy sets the background for, and boundaries of, political philosophy. "We have moral obligations towards each other, some of which are matters of public responsibility, enforced through public institutions, others of which are matters of personal responsibility, involving rules of personal conduct. Political philosophy focuses on those obligations which justify the use of public institutions." (5) Secondly, any account of our public responsibilities must fit into a broader moral framework that makes room for, and makes sense of, our private responsibilities, and vice versa.
In addition, he thinks the ultimate test of a political theory is that it cohere with, and help illuminate, our considered convictions of justice. "In saying this, I am drawing on what I take to be the everyday view of moral and political argument; that is, we all have moral beliefs, these beliefs can be right or wrong, we have reasons for thinking they are either right or wrong, and these reasons and beliefs can be organized into systematic moral principles and theories of justice." (6)