The ethics of identity and cosmopolitanism in Appiah's philosophy

Individuality and Community

Ethics

How Self is Integrated into the Global Whole as an Ethical Entity

The ethics of social justice is wrapped in the ideas of how individuals within a society are trained as ethical beings, and how they regard other outside of their immediate society (Jackson, 2005). Appiah uses the final two chapters of his book The Ethics of Identity to discuss how individuals are given an ethical soul and also how people are members of something larger than either their nations or themselves. This paper is designed to give the reader an understanding of one person's understanding of the four concepts of social justice, soul making and rooted cosmopolitanism, and how all of those concepts tie into one another.

Four Conceptions of Social Justice

Like most other concepts, social justice is not the purview of a single theoretician or set of ideas. Many people, beginning in ancient writings such as the Bible, have discussed how social justice should be administered in a society. These writings have been condensed into four basic conceptions of the way people view social justice: "liberal distribution, critical distribution, liberal recognition, and critical recognition" (Rottmann, 2008). These four ideas have been proposed by different theorists who saw society from entirely different angles. These are discussed individually in the following sections.

Liberal Distribution

The idea of liberal distribution was developed by John Rawls, and was outlined in his book A Theory of Justice (1971). The idea is that in a liberal society people will want to distribute material goods equally. Rottmann (2008) says that "…liberal distribution, which focuses on the allocation or reallocation of material resources, relies on a consensus approach to the problem of inequality." What he means by this is that people will rise to the occasion, and equitably redistribute the material resources that the society possesses. He also believes that people will do this as a society because they want to live in equality. Rawls also agrees that this is a perfect society. "The distributive paradigm defines social justice as the morally proper distribution of social benefits and burdens among societies members" (Young & Allen, 2011, 55). So the caveat to this argument has to be that it is seen as a morally proper distribution of the resources of the society. Of course the phrase, morally proper, can be defined differently by different societies and even individuals within the society. Also, the above statement talks about both the "social benefits and burdens" being shared commodities. In this perfect society, when someone has a grievance, the entire society will act to make restitution if it is needed. The idea seems to mesh well with Plato's idea of a perfect society working together in mutual understanding of what their place is and accord with that place.

An important concept within this definition is that of material goods. Young and Allen (20ll, 55) say that "Paramount among these are wealth, income and other material resources. The distributive definition of justice often includes, however, nonmaterial social goods such as rights, opportunity, power, and self-respect" (Young & Allen, 2011, 55). Thus, material resource does not necessarily imply some type of tangible asset that the society possesses. Every person within this society has the same " rights, opportunity, power, and self-respect" as everyone else. Everyone has the same ability to fulfill their potential because everyone else wants to maintain their rights as well.

Rawls' idea also borrows from the works of Plato in that he talks about how rational individuals will act. He says that;

"a group of rational individuals, unaware of their social position would ultimately generate two rules in support of a just and fair society: First, each person is to have equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. Second, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be of everyone's advantage, and b) attached to the positions and offices open to all" (Rottmann, 2008).

He expects that rationality also means justice. Because people will want others to be aware of and regard the rights of others, he thinks that a rational person, in a rational society will also regard their rights a sacred. In this society, people are not governed by emotion or any of the petty jealousies that people would normally have because everyone is equal. Another function of this belief is that people will act in this manner because the same advancement and power is equal with all.

Many problems arise from this society if it is logically examined because people are not naturally disposed to honor others. According to Hobbes humans can only show self-interest because people still retain the base nature of animals (Clark, 1995). Because of this nature, liberal distribution becomes impossible. But even if human nature is more forgiving and compassionate, it is difficult to imagine a society that could purely exhibit these perfect qualities of distribution. In many cases throughout history, it has been shown that if people are allowed to reap benefits without equal work, many will. However, in some small instances this theory of social justice does work. Within a classroom, or at a small company, or even in a very small society, it is possible that this idea of equal justice could work. But for a large, very diverse society, this would be very difficult to attain.

Critical Distribution

In a society, there are times when injustice is so egregious that people will rise up against that injustice and fight it. Karl Marx had the idea that capitalism was a bad idea because the owners of businesses will always, by definition, exploit the people who work for them (Kelso, 1957). Since the owners of the business have the all of the power, they will use that to get the most production out of the people who work for them through whatever nefarious means they can imagine. For example, Upton Sinclair wrote, in The Jungle, about an immigrant family who worked at various industries in the Chicago area, but most famously the meat-packing industry. Sinclair was able to describe the conditions which the employees were forced to work under while the owners of the plants did not even monitor the plants. The managers were harsh and the work was extreme. After people read this account, there was a general outcry across the nation for an examination of the conditions in these different plants. This, and many similar incidents, caused the rise of unions in the United States. Either the people who were being exploited, or social activists lobbied for better conditions, and most often they got them.

Critical distribution is best explained through the definition of the word critical. The word, in one sense, means that an especially important juncture has occurred. When people completely lose the rights and power that they naturally feel entitled to, they will, at some point, rebel. It is during and after this rebellion that equality is attained and the people are able to acquire social justice. The distribution of material goods can be realized as a result of this process also.

Liberal Recognition

This idea is much the same as liberal distribution in that a group of people reach a consensus that something must be done to equally distribute a set of goods. However, whereas liberal distribution normally has to do with material goods such as some form of wealth, liberal recognition has to do with "identity and status" (Rottmann, 2008). Some people in the society have achieved a higher place than others through some means. In general, there are people within this society who have had their rights diminished because of who they are. Rottmann (2008) states "groups who advocate for human rights for all without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, class, disability, geography, language or other dimensions of privilege believe activists can work together toward social justice by recognizing and celebrating diversity." This is not the same as a critical recognition because it is a consensus among the people rather than one group feeling oppressed and demanding their rights from another.

Many examples of this type of redistribution exist. Women were not allowed to have positions of leadership in many different occupations. Because of this injustice, people organized to extend the same rights that men had to positions of authority that men had always enjoyed. Groups that have been formed due to this type of social justice include multiculturalist education, radical feminism and education regarding basic human rights (Pinkard, 2007). However, there are some issues that people have with this concept.

The problem that some have with this view is that it is not ethical because it does not take into account individuality. "Communitarian writers argue that social identity is deeply important to individual autonomy and thus liberal societies have an obligation to recognize identity. Any liberal view that attempts to account for this charge must specify a procedure to recognize identity that also ensures that the liberal sense of autonomy is not weakened" (Akhtar, 2011). Individualism can be lost in a group's quest to make sure that rights are distributed equally. As an example of this, Akhtar (2011) relates that "for instance, Naisha will have her own particularized way of being Indian in addition to the collective form of the culture that she shares with others." Every individual will benefit from the equal distribution of the right that has been given to all or the status that all have achieved, but they will all wear it differently. Each person within the collective has their own unique way of employing the distribution. So, the autonomy, the right to personhood, also needs to be recognized as an essential element of all these conceptions of social justice.

Critical Recognition

The liberal form of both distribution and recognition seek to inform the members of society that all people nave the rights which only a few enjoy. The method of informing is teaching or in some other way instructing them of the value of each person, and the rights that all should enjoy equally. Although, both the liberal forms and the critical forms seek the same distribution of recognition they seek to address wrongs via different ideologies.

Critical recognition can be equated in form to critical distribution. Because there has been a social injustice, people have reached a point where they can no longer live the way they have been. At a certain juncture, the oppressed seek redress for those wrongs. These individuals realize that the people who have the power are not recognizing the rights of all individuals, and that they probably never will. Therefore, critical recognition requires that they take some extreme action which will get the attention of those who currently have power. This does not have to be a violent action, and most of the time it is not, but it does have to be some form of concerted effort which will impact the people in power.

Recently, there have been two events that show the power of critical recognition. In the Middle East, many nations have been controlled by oppressive regimes for a number of years. The wealth that exists in those countries has not been equally distributed to the people, but the people have also not received the personhood recognition that they have a right to. Several nations, beginning with Tunisia and Egypt and moving to other nations in the region, felt that the oppressive regimes had been in power for too many years, and they sought, through peaceful and violent means, to be recognized. Since the uprisings began, there have been successful government transitions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Other nations continue to struggle with social injustice and the concept of critical recognition.

Another example is the occupy protests that have occurred in the United States and the civil unrest in many European nations. The occupy movement is a group of individuals who have stationed themselves at critical places (most notably Wall Street in New York) to protest the corruption of the banking industry and the government. In Europe, large crowds have gathered in Greece, Italy, England and other countries to protest government policies. There was actually a government change in Italy, and many officials fear that the same will occur in Greece. These protests are all a result of critical recognition.

Soul Making

The different conceptions of social justice are all a part of what Appiah (2005) talks about in the final two chapters of The Ethics of Identity. The fifth chapter is called soul making and it refers to how people have their ethical identities formed. Appiah is talking about individual identities, but he is talking about social programs that are responsible for how these individual identities are determined. From the book, "By 'soul making' I mean the project of intervening in the process of interpretation through which each citizen develops an identity -- and doing so with the intention of increasing her chances of living an ethically successful life" (Appiah, 2005, 164). His reference to the soul is something apart from the physical human nature which is animalistic. An individual may be born with this part of their person according to Appiah, but they have to develop it by some means. Soul making then is the process every individual goes through by which they become an ethical human being.

This process is necessary because of the inherent selfish nature people have when they are born. Of course, the self-interest is necessary in order to survive prior to being able to fend for oneself, but other skills must be developed as a person matures. Cooperation to maintain ones rights is essential, as a totally selfish person would also have to be totally self-reliant. No one is going to continue to provide for someone else past a certain point of maturity unless there is some reciprocation of rights. The selfish completely selfish individual would have to impinge on the rights of others to remain so. Thus, this social injustice would be met with one of the three conceptions of social justice depending on what the issue was. When an individual begins to realize that they must cooperate with other people to have their needs met, they begin the process of soul making.

However, Appiah (2005) looks at the issue of soul making from a more global point-of-view. Though it is important for each individual to develop some amount of ethical understanding, it is also an important function of government. He also states that it is "important to distinguish between different ways in which the state may influence my ethical life" (Appiah, 2005). The state is responsible because the rules of a society may not be apparent to the individual unless they are reinforced by the government of that society.

There are several readily apparent laws that the state must enact so that people can enjoy a civil society. First, "government must enforce contracts" (Appiah, 2005, 164). All individuals have to make pacts with others in the society, but they are not forced by human nature to keep those contracts. Acting ethically may be a personal prerogative, but the government needs to ensure that people are honest in their dealings unless the society fall apart. Power cannot be a factor because this can lead to unfair dealings. The government then is there to make sure that every individual and organization plays by an ethical set of rules. This was the case in the break ups of AT&T and Standard Oil. A government must also "provide…physical security -- from assault and the destruction of our property" (Appiah, 2005, 164). According proponents of a law of nations (also called natural law by some) such as Grotius and Locke, the basic right that all people share is that they have a right not to have their possessions interfered with by any other person. This includes bodily harm and destruction of property. As a matter of fact, the concept can be seen as encompassing the entire personhood of an individual. Appiah is agreeing with this principle, and he is also saying that it is a matter for the state to ensure that this does not occur. Thus, the training required in soul making is increasingly a matter for the state, and not for the individual.

The state intentionally acts to protect the rights of the individual and to make sure that all members of the nation understand what the rules are. This can be accomplished in several ways. Education is the initial method employed to give the citizens a means of understanding what the rules are. If an individual has a grievance, the state also provides a mediator who can determine what is right. The courts are designed to determine what an equitable, just and ethical settlement is. Finally, the state may have to employ punitive damages, or other punitive action, if there is a breach of ethics which requires it. Soul making on the part of the state is a method that can be used to make sure that the final two steps in the process are used as little as possible.

A nation has to guarantee, through education, that the people of the society remain as ethical as possible. This is accomplished in:

"…three large areas where the notion of soul making would seem to have prospects. The first has to do with our defections from rationality: in order to promote our well-being, we may wish the state to remedy our incapacities of reason, and these interventions can have foreseeable, intended consequences for our ethical selves, our social identities. The second has to do with the role of antidiscrimination law in sustaining or reshaping social identities: for these laws forbid only some forms of differential treatment, and in the contours of actual judicial decisions, we can see, for example, how the social meanings of gender have been reconfigured. The third area…has to do with social reproduction and the education of the young. Throughout, we should attend upon how such soul- making interventions might encroach upon, or, contrarily, reinforce, what Mill called 'individuality as an element of well-being" (Appiah, 2005, 165).