There is no point my pretending that what I write here will make any difference. But there are two things we can draw from moral philosophy that I believe are relevant to the current war in the Gaza Strip. The aim of this article is to think through the conflict neutrally and reasonably using the tools of political philosophy.

Impartially speaking, what we’re aiming to balance are the autonomy claims made by a tide of autonomous agents. Having an historic connection to a land obviously gives someone a claim to that land. However those actually living there have much stronger claims. Security and livelihood also strengthen an autonomy claim. What I think is interesting about thinking impartially in this way is that there is no necessary derivation from these autonomy claims of a requirement for a unitary state.

The German peoples needed a Germany; the Italian peoples needed an Italy; the Greek peoples needed a Greece. And, of course, the Jews needed a homeland. The problem with such a perspective, what some cultural theorists would call a binary perspective, is that it doesn’t settle competing autonomy claims over a disputed territory. The history of political self-determination is littered with the consequences of disputed realms: Northern Ireland, Kashmir and Israel being three bloody examples.
continue reading… »

A few weeks ago, an article in the FT criticised the current proposals for the so-called choice agenda in public services.

Interestingly it doesn’t seem to be a criticism from the left (i.e. that there should be no market in public services) but from a more libertarian perspective – that the choice isn’t a real one.

Those on the traditional free-market right would have “choice” in public services no matter what happens to equity. The argument goes something along the lines that choice would drive up standards everywhere benefiting all. Those of the traditional social democratic/socialist persuasion think equity is too great a thing to be sacrificed in the name of choice.
continue reading… »

The Spiritual Civilisation Construction Commission has the job of curbing anti-social behaviour in Beijing whilst cultivating courtesy and civility instead. It has issued booklets and launched campaigns to minimise littering and China’s problem with public spitting, it has issued edicts on sartorial and social matters from handshaking to the length of one’s skirt. It has also been accompanied by a zero tolerance, broken windows approach to minor infractions such as spitting.

This is interesting for one major reason: it sounds very much like an extreme version of policies suggested by David Cameron, a whole suite of policies that might be labelled “soft paternalism”.
continue reading… »