I. THE PROGRAM

II. Questions:

a. Would it be morally wrong for the Core faculty to institute The Program?

b. What if your life would go better than it is going now?

c. What if relations within your household would also be more just?

III. Principle of Sovereignty: A self-governing society has a moral right to be free from intervention by outsiders, even if intervention would make its members better off, or make its internal relations more just.

a. Beitz rejects this principle: a society has no right not to be interfered with by outsiders—no right of sovereignty—unless it is just (or more likely to become just if left alone).

b. Should we accept the Principle of Sovereignty, or not? If not, why? If so, in what sense?

1. If we accept the principle, we might seem to be tolerating injustice that should be resisted.

2. If we reject the principle, as Beitz does, this might seem to justify a new, disrespectful imperialism.

IV. Colonialism

a. Economic competition

b. Colonial populations will be better off

c. Beveridge: “The rule of liberty that all just government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, applies only to those who are capable of self-government” (HCCR, p. 157).

i. Abbot Lawrence Lowell: the Anglo-Saxon race only mastered the “art of self-government” “by centuries of discipline under the supremacy of law” (HCCR, p. 168). Other populations will get there, but it will take time.

ii. No consent

V. Two objections to the Principle of Sovereignty

a. Too weak, because it doesn’t capture rights to national self-determination.

b. Too strong, because it forbids intervention when justice requires it.

VI. The Principle of National Self-Determination: people of common nationality have a right to be a self-governing society, free from interference by people of a different nationality.

a. If a nation now shares a government with another nation, it has a right to secession.

i. “Nation” versus “nation-state”

ii. the BLUES and the PURPLES

b. Principle of Inclusion: any government must extend economic, social, and political rights and opportunities equally to all of its subjects, regardless of regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, or gender.

c. Beitz: “What is certain is that members of colonized groups have the right to just institutions; whether they have a right of self-determination depends on the extent to which the granting of independence would, in their particular circumstances, help to minimize injustice” (Beitz, p. 102).

d. A separate right of national self-determination?

VII. Is the Principle of Sovereignty too strong?

a. Beitz: a society has no right to be free of outside intervention unless and until its arrangements are just.

b. A duty to intervene?

VIII. Why not imperialism?

a. Lowell: colonial rule founded on belief in justice, the belief that “all men are created equal” (HCCR, p. 165). It should govern “with a single eye to their own welfare,” by someone who “can do justice to all the races” (HCCR, p. 169).

b. Beitz: rejects imperial rule on empirical grounds.

i. Lowell: rule by a small minority is “always liable to produce tyrannical abuse” (HCCR, p. 169).

ii. J. S. Mill: people are generally in the best position to determine their own interests (Beitz, p. 84).

iii. Betiz: “the heart of the case against colonialism” is that it tended to make local arrangements more unjust. The “European powers,” created “new social problems, increased distributive inequalities, structural economic distortions… and absolute as well as relative deprivation in the lower classes” (Betiz, p. 101).