Get an Expert Solution to this question. Click on the WhatsApp button below.

Essay Writing Questions

1. According to Simmons, Rawls believes civil disobedience improves near just societies rather than radically altering them. Disobedience must also be addressed to the public majority’s views on clear structural injustices inhering in society. It must also take place when all other legal outlets have been exhausted and must always be nonviolent. Simmons asserts Rawls’ view is limited because it explains responses to injustice in imagined utopian societies and does not consider how “near just” societies were built on catastrophic historical injustices (E.g., Indigenous Genocide and African Slave Trades). The descendants to those who initially experienced those historical injustices could thus argue the state is illegitimate because a “just” order never existed.

Is Simmons’ account persuasive? Do you think he is drawing too sharp a distinction between historical injustice and structural injustice? Is it possible to address major historical injustices and improve what Rawls describes as “near just” societies? Or do you think that addressing historical injustices always implies questioning (and even challenging) the legitimacy of states?

2. Kimberle Crenshaw writes that tensions in racial justice movements are based on divides between Race Liberals and Critical Race Theorists. She points out that Race Liberals advance the notion that overcoming racism is based on “neutral” social institutions ensuring equal access to Black communities, Indigenous communities, and other peoples of color. Critical Race Theorists instead look to contest the extent to which “neutral” and “colorblind” social institutions are preserve white supremacy and unjust hierarchies. 

Building on Crenshaw’s analysis, do you think securing racial justice is centered on ensuring equal access to institutions? Or does it depend on developing new and more equitable institutions with Black, Indigenous, and other Peoples of Color taking the lead? Or do you think there is a combination of both options?

3. Henry Shue contends that Human Rights are meant to prevent deprivations against basic needs. This extends to ensuring that all are protected against the negative impacts related to climate change. This includes those who will exist in the future. To ignore Human Rights in the future is to place a negative dilemma on its peoples. Those in the future can be impacted by destroying the environment to save the economy because we in the present have made it so dependent on fossil fuels. They could also destroy the economy because the need to save the damaged environment we have created becomes that much greater.

With that in mind, how can States and Corporations be held to account for violating the Human Rights of future populations? Do you think this is possible? Why or Why not?