پژوهشگر و مدرس فلسفه سیاسی و مطالعات فرهنگی و تمدنی
In the name of God
First, I would like to thank Professor Scanlon for accepting the invitation of the Research Institute of Cultural, Social and civilization Studies to participate in this meeting.
I am also grateful to Dr. Hossein Houshmand and Mrs. Narges Selahshor for participating in this meeting.
I would like to thank, my colleague, Dr. Khadem (the secretary of this meeting) also.
In my opinion, this book is one of the most important books of political philosophy on the subject of inequality.
I am not exaggerating if I say that this great book has shown the ability of analytical philosophy to face social issues.
This book tries to analyze the issue of inequality with a high level of realism.
In addition, this book is not satisfied with discussing the generalities and has paid attention to the details and complexities of different types of inequality.
I would like to tell Professor Scanlon that this book has been welcomed by many political philosophy professors and researchers in Iran.
The fact is that during the last few decades, the discourse of neo-liberalism has dominated most of the world.
In this situation, we are facing an exponential increase in inequality in the whole world and in developed and developing countries.
Meanwhile, the efforts of contemporary theoreticians in the issue of justice are significant. The important theory of John Rawls and his critics, such as Michael Sandel, Robert Nozick, etc. But it cannot be denied that we have not yet arrived at a strong theory and model in order to realize the appropriate level of equality.
Of course, I am not talking about a universal theory or model because it is clear that the theory of social justice is effective in any country when it is localized.
At the same time, it must be accepted that today, more than 50% of the problems of the countries are the same on the issue of inequality.
In my opinion, a theory and a model are successful when,
First, they have defended themselves well in the theoretical arena against rigorous and ruthless criticism.
Secondly, it has concretely proven its effectiveness in practice.
In fact, I am a supporter of Popper’s view in the humanities and consider criticism the only way to approach the truth.
Therefore, the main criterion for evaluating a theory is the resilience of the theory against criticism.
However, I would like to make a few major criticisms of this book as some questions.
Of course, maybe my criticisms are the result of my misunderstanding.
So I apologize if I am wrong.
First, this book has described equality as a general and universal right, but I believe that if we consider entitlement as the central sign of social justice, then equality is one of the requirements of justice.
That is, justice is not equal to equality everywhere. Even equality can be against justice in some cases.
I want to say، isn’t the compatibility of equality and justice a form of inferiority complex?
Second, this book has explained the problems caused by inequality with high accuracy, but maybe it has not paid attention to the fact that how realistic is the expectation to move on the path of equality in the modern world and within the framework of the social contract and the atmosphere of utilitarianism and pragmatism?
In fact, I would say the survival of modernity has become dependent on the continuation of inequality.
Third, is equality realism or idealism? Is it possible for populism to emerge here?
Fourth, in order not to be accused of sloganeering and theory weaving, what accessories should we consider for equality? Awareness, law, maximal government or minimal government?
Fifth, if equality happens, what happens to competition?
As a result, what happens to development? Is development possible without mass and concentrated wealth?
Sixth, what is the role of the government and the people in achieving equality? Is it all on the shoulders of the government?
Seventh, is freedom before equality? Equality precedes freedom? With what justification do we limit individual freedoms in the name of equality?
In fact, it is feared that, in the name of equality, governments will be given wide powers to dominate people’s lives.
Eighth, it requires equality of criteria and a valid scale; where do we get this measure and scale from?
Ninth, what is the origin of equality? Is it moral? Is it right? Where did this right come from? And what kind of worldview does it belong to?
Tenth, what does equality do to biodiversity? Doesn’t equality destroy biodiversity?
Eleventh, how do you respond to Derrida’s deconstructionist objection that equality or inequality is not necessarily something that exists outside my mind?
You may say that this book is mostly trying to describe the reality of inequality, and therefore you shouldn’t expect anything more than a description from it.
I accept this, but I imagine that the answer to these questions also plays a role in describing inequality.
Thank you very much for your attention.
بدون دیدگاه