Debates

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

Leo asks how the claim that "the free development of each is a condition for 
the free development of all" can be anything but a  principle of distributive 
justice. Well, it can be a factual claim: that there cannot asa  matter of 
fact be free development for each without there being free development for 
all. Moreover, if it is a normative claim, it is not a distributive one. It 
does not tell us that we are to distribute freedom equally, or that we may 
distribute unequally just insofar as necessary in order to promote greater 
freedom. In fact, it tell sus nothing about the distribution of freedom or 
free development except that it must be universal for individuals to enjoy 
it. That's consistent with a very large number of inconsistent distributions. 
--jks 

In a message dated Fri, 13 Oct 2000  2:03:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
LeoCasey at aol.com writes:

<< << If we want a society based where 'the free development of each is the  
precondition for the free development of all' 

But what is this classic Marxian formula, if not very clearly a principle of 
distributive justice? If you want to forego the language of justice, you 
can't very well appeal to  this formula -- or to the common good -- as if it 
is somehow outside of that language. Rather, you must grapple with how it is 
possible to construct at least provisional concepts of "justice," which 
escape some of the strictures you see in the common use of the language.

 
Leo Casey
United Federation of Teachers
260 Park Avenue South
New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)

Power concedes nothing without a demand.
It never has, and it never will.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who 
want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and 
lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
-- Frederick Douglass --

 >>