Carlos: Harris' Appeal to the Law of Nature

By

From Locke's Second Treatise, we learn that humans have both a right of nature and a law of nature, where our right is protected and the law is unbreakable. However, when considering Harris's argument that the right to whiteness as property should not be protected, it might seem like she goes against Lockean reason. After all, to be white is a part of one's self, the most fundamental property. We all have a right to protect our property and no one can take our property with our consent. However, when considering the law of nature, Harris' argument for denying protection to whiteness as property falls more in line with Locke's beliefs. 

The law of nature requires that all humans treat others the same way as they would treat themselves for we are all equal (the golden rule). Nevertheless, in Part I and II, Harris describes how the notion of whiteness is inherently based on the oppression and subordination of others. The systems of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and even anti-discrimination laws continued to uphold the privileges of whiteness as inherent even when they are based on racial subordination. Beginning with "whiteness [as] the quintessential property for personhood" (1730), whiteness could only be built on racial subordination, denying the personhood of others, a clear violation to the law of nature. Still, even if whiteness isn't upheld as outright privilege anymore and there is a more equal treatment because of Brown v. Board, the value of whiteness continues to loom over non-whites. Whiteness continues to create the rules everyone else must adhere by, benefiting White people through the continued subordination of non-whites. We may be closer to satisfying the law of nature but it is still easy to see that whiteness continues to prevent us from equality.

As such, Harris provides that affirmative action can be a way to better uphold the law of nature. Distributive justice can prevent any further unnecessary fighting of who is to take the blame and begin to end generations worth of hurting. Affirmative action when done (and explained) properly is a reasonable response to mistakes that have been years in the making. Affirmative action is a clear submission to reason to uphold the law of nature.

Comments

  1. Henry LongJanuary 26, 2023 at 12:37 AM

    I strongly disagree that Harris makes an appeal to Locke's laws of nature. In fact, she seems to outright reject the natural law model of property rights in favor of one where "property rights and interests are not 'natural,' but are 'creation[s] of law'" (Harris 1730).

    ReplyDelete
  2. HurleyJanuary 26, 2023 at 10:09 AM

    I wonder if there is a reading upon which you are both right about important elements of Harris's account. We socially construct property entitlements, Harris argues -- it is hard to see how they grow out of natural, pre-social entitlements. On the other hand, Harris clearly is arguing that some of these social constructions of property are deeply unjust, and they are unjust when they ignore the claims to equal treatment, equal protection, etc., that we have. The question is whether the place to which we step back in evaluating property relations in your society is in certain respects a Lockean place.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Henry LongJanuary 26, 2023 at 11:16 AM

    I'm skeptical as to whether Harris is appealing to "claims to equal treatment [and] equal protection" per se. In fact, Harris explicitly rejects an equal treatment framework for an equalizing treatment one. She writes, "legitimation should be accomplished not merely by implementing equal treatment, but by equalizing treatment among the groups that have been illegitimately privileged or unfairly subordinated by racial stratification" (Harris 1779).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more