"Realistic Utopia"?
Rawls is very interesting. He is truly a neo-Kantian, most evidently demonstrated in his work "The Law of Peoples". Many correlations can be drawn from Kant's Perpetual Peace. Rawls's originality, however, lies in his ability to rationalize the principles laid out by Kant using his original position and filtering non-universal maxims through his categorical imperative. This idea of a peaceful federation (foedus pacificum) is somewhat cosmopolitan, and very utopian. According to Rawls's model, war would be virtually eliminated amongst liberal democratic societies as well as decent societies. He is therefore a very strong proponent of liberal democracy, and understandably so.
However, this happy picture leads one to question where the "realism" enters into the picture. Some may suggest that his 8 principles are realistic, but I argue that what makes his "realistic utopia" truly realistic is the importance he places on "peoples" rather than "nations" or "states", themselves being rather, and overly, parsimonious institutions. States cannot act morally. In saying this, I mean that the nature of the state does not prioritize moral actions over self-interested ones. Among states, utilitarianism is king. Realism defines much of state action, where liberalism and interdependence forms much of what people within states wish to aspire the state to be. The focus on people is important because it realises that states are controlled through the actions of people. When public reason and consensus is adequately developed in a liberal society, war is very much avoidable. When the people within a liberal democratic state develop morals that work internationally, the state has little choice but to follow suit. Institutional change that develops the people within states seems to me, although a long drawn out process, the only way to achieve a long term change in the international system where utilitarian states seem, to reign supreme.
However, this happy picture leads one to question where the "realism" enters into the picture. Some may suggest that his 8 principles are realistic, but I argue that what makes his "realistic utopia" truly realistic is the importance he places on "peoples" rather than "nations" or "states", themselves being rather, and overly, parsimonious institutions. States cannot act morally. In saying this, I mean that the nature of the state does not prioritize moral actions over self-interested ones. Among states, utilitarianism is king. Realism defines much of state action, where liberalism and interdependence forms much of what people within states wish to aspire the state to be. The focus on people is important because it realises that states are controlled through the actions of people. When public reason and consensus is adequately developed in a liberal society, war is very much avoidable. When the people within a liberal democratic state develop morals that work internationally, the state has little choice but to follow suit. Institutional change that develops the people within states seems to me, although a long drawn out process, the only way to achieve a long term change in the international system where utilitarian states seem, to reign supreme.
