Sociology 303
Sociological Theory
Fall 2003
Dr. Scott SchafferThird Paper Assignment – Weber, Durkheim, and Marx
Due Date: Th Nov 13/2003 at the start of class. No late papers will be accepted without a compelling and well-documented excuse given in advance of the due date.
Criteria: This paper is to be a minimum of 8 (eight) full and complete pages; there is no maximum length for the paper, so you should write until your paper is fully developed. Your paper must be typewritten, double-spaced, on 8 1/2” by 11” paper. Your paper must have a cover page, on which a creative title (“Third Paper Assignment” is simply not creative enough), your name, the topic number to which you’re responding, and any other pertinent information should appear; your name should not appear anywhere else in the paper. For all other technical information, please see the “How to Write a Schaffer Paper” handout. And finally, no direct quotations are permitted in this paper; any materials you use to support your argument must be paraphrased and cited following the guidelines in the paper-writing handout.
Assignment: You are to develop an argument in response to one of the two following topics. Ensure that your paper is not limited to a recitation of the writings of Weber, Durkheim, Marx, or my lectures, but that you use those materials to develop an argument that clearly expresses your thoughts on the matter.
In developing your response to the chosen topic, you should follow the same kind of outline/structure followed in the previous two papers, making sure to add Durkheim and the issue of justice into that outline in an appropriate manner. The paragraphs below each topic list the things that you need to ensure your paper accomplishes in the development of your argument.
The Topics:
1. Whose ideas regarding the extent of negative liberty in our social order best exemplifies your idea of justice, and why?
In developing your response to this question, be sure to: outline Berlin’s definition of and criteria for recognizing negative liberty, (incorporating any of the other Warburton readings as needed); discuss each theorist’s ideas on the extent of negative liberty in the capitalist social structure as well as the potential for these structures to change; and outline your conception of justice (using one of those on the back of this page) as well as how you would recognize if that conception of justice is being met. Also, be sure that you discuss each author’s conception of justice, as well as how you’d recognize their conception of justice at work.
2. Whose ideas regarding the relationship between positive freedom and the capitalist social order do you find match your conception of justice, and why?
In developing your response to this question, be sure to: outline Berlin’s definition of and criteria for recognizing positive freedom, (incorporating any of the other Warburton readings as needed); discuss (using evidence from the books) each author’s ideas on whether or not our current social structure enhances or deprives our positive freedom as well as how we can reclaim that kind of freedom; and outline your conception of justice (using one of those on the back of this page) as well as how you would recognize if that conception of justice is being met. Also, be sure that you discuss each author’s conception of justice, as well as how you’d recognize their conception of justice at work.
Conceptions of Justice
PLEASE NOTE: These definitions of conceptions of justice leave out one important factor: the criteria by which individual actions and/or social policies are evaluated in terms of “just” or “unjust”. This is because these criteria are often the subject of hot philosophical debate; philosophers (and those whose social actions and/or policies embody philosophies) often utilize both different conceptions of justice and evaluation criteria to legitimate anything ranging from fascism to absolute freedom. I also leave their particular applications to your paper to you. Each conception of justice occurs in our society in different circumstances; it’s up to you to decide for yourself how things “should be.”
Deontological (universal) justice: A conception of justice that relies upon the first principle of duties or rights; in other words, justice occurs when someone obeys their duty (to themselves or to others) or acts in accordance with their rights or the rights of others, without regard for the consequences of their actions. The site of evaluation as to whether or not an act is just is in the intention – whether or not the consequences are good or bad, so long as one acts in accordance with their duty or their rights (or those of the individual toward whom they are acting). Example: From a deontological perspective, acting on one’s right to “free speech” would be just, regardless of whether or not the content of the speech or its results were just. Generally focuses primarily on the individual and their general (or universalized) context and an abstract conception of duty.
Teleological/consequentialist justice: The idea that justice’s site of evaluation is with the consequences of one’s actions; if the results are just, then the action is just. Examples range from Machiavelli’s “the ends justify the means” to governmental justifications for the death penalty. Often focuses upon the maintenance of a social order as a primary good, or on the historical context of the situation under evaluation.
Distributive justice: The idea that justice is in the distribution of goods, services, rights, duties or freedoms. If the distribution is just, then regardless of the just-ness of what is distributed the social order is seen to be just. Usually utilized by those who would wish to see the proceeds of society redistributed, but can be used to justify punitive and/or repressive measures as well (i.e., “people get what they deserve” is just as valid as “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” in this view).
Meritocratic justice: The idea that justice (especially in terms of societies characterized by different kinds of inequalities) depends on an individual’s ability to achieve what they are capable of achieving. In other words, if an individual is able to maximize their abilities, then regardless of the inequalities in the distribution of rewards the system is just.
Processual justice: The idea that justice occurs when a particular process by which “justice” is determined is followed. (In the US, we refer to it as “due process”; see the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.) Regardless of the outcome of the process, if the particularities of the process are observed, the results are “just.”
“Content-based” justice: The idea (often in conjunction with another form of justice) that the particular application of criteria by which “justice” is determined should be based upon the content or the particularities of an individual’s and/or society’s circumstances. Often involves a sense of proportionality (i.e., does this action merit this response?), an idea of multiple causes for a single action, and (to some extent) a deferral of total individual responsibility onto the social order or to the historical situation.