Should we try to limit the human population in order to preserve habitats for animals? Is it acceptable to raise animals for food, if otherwise those animals would never have lived at all? Contact Matthew Rendall if you have an interest in research in this area. Much green political thought places value on the natural world but an interrogation of the human relationship with nature suggests a range of attitudes to nature.
The pursuit of such attitudes reveals connections between people's attitudes to nature and their ideas about autonomy. This raises fundamental questions for political theory such as - does the pursuit of an autonomous life necessarily involve a radical separation from nature? The question of how the tenets of justice might be applied to environmental questions has been a central concern in environmental political theory in recent years, as considerations of both distribution and recognition raise difficult problems in this area.
For example can and should the 'community of justice' be extended beyond the conventional human-centred sphere to include sentient animals, all life, or even entire ecosystems? Can such an extension be grounded in the concept of autonomy? How can we understand justice in relation to future generations of human beings who do not yet exist? Does the loss of irreplaceable natural values raise special problems for justice theory? Connect with the University of Nottingham through social media and our blogs. Campus maps More contact information Jobs. Home About Research. Green Political Theory.
Print Email this Page. Search this Section. His point is that these inequalities are necessary to raise everyone's standard of living to a level sufficient for moral development. Why does Green believe this? It could be argued that the capitalist market necessarily operates in such a way that some people inevitably suffer such extreme poverty that their lives will be meaningless. He recognises that there are many people who, while being formally able to appropriate, have no real power to do so. For this reason, they cannot command a wage in the market which is sufficient to empower their formal ability to appropriate.
They will not bother to save as they are so cynical about their prospects for self-advancement and breed so quickly that they merely perpetuate these evils LPPO Furthermore their poverty forces them to accept a state of near-slavery — enduring bad working conditions, hours and housing which causes which cause ill-health and even death.
They are thereby forced to seek comfort in alcohol and shallow past-times, and to neglect their own education and that of their children LFC — Indeed, this is the ground on which he analyses, for example, his contemporary factory legislation LFC — and licensing laws LFC — He argues that the fundamental cause of the conditions of the working classes is the manner in which current land holdings were acquired.
This has had at least two effects. The workers have been conditioned to take orders and not to exercise their own judgement. They are forced to accept any work they can find and so to endure low wages and poor conditions.
Green Political Theory - Robert E Goodin - Häftad () | Bokus
This leads to little incentive to either save or make long-term plans. Thus, the proletariat have not come to see themselves as capable of or deserving of freedom, nor as having any real family responsibilities. In this way, workers have been denied the power to develop. They cannot actualise their potential to become self-conscious and self-determining beings.
Secondly, landlords have been given rights which they should not possess; that is, rights which are contrary to the development of the species.
One example is the right to unlimited appropriation of the land. Thus, although things other than land can be legitimately appropriated without restraint, the acquisition of land must be regulated. Land is the precondition of all other forms of ownership, and so must be granted to everybody to some degree LPPO For example, everyone must occupy some area of land, even if it is merely the land under your feet.
If all land was privately owned by landlords, everyone else could justly be excluded from the world. This would be an incredible infringement of the development of the eternal consciousness. In more realistic terms, private control of land allows private control of what happens on that land. The landlords would then have the power to restrict the workers' free exercise of their consciences and the free execution of their life plans. The basis of rights — the service of the eternal consciousness — is contradicted.
- The Aromatherapy Handbook: The Secret Healing Power Of Essential Oils!
- Love in Hitchcocks Film The Birds!
- Introducing Green Theory in International Relations.
- Lenny The Blenny (A Shaq-a-Fishy Tale Book 1).
- Reward Yourself.
- Green Political Theory.
Without real freedom, individuals are denied the chance to realise their personal conception of the good. They do not have the opportunity to implement long-term plans, nor the self-discipline which an autonomous life brings. One interesting point is that landlords could and sometimes did serve the eternal consciousness by banning public houses from their land. However, this furtherance of the eternal consciousness does not affect Green's basic and very valid point.
- Download options?
- Planting Seeds, Harvesting Souls!
- Green Political Theory;
- See a Problem?;
- Shallow Foundations: Bearing Capacity and Settlement, Second Edition;
- Crescendo (Cognizance Book 2).
- Microsoft Outlook: The Video Guide.
Yet, exactly how the state should regulate private property in land will depend on national circumstances and history LPPO Given Green's ambivalence to private ownership of land, systems of communal ownership with private use may well have been acceptable to him They are at least broadly consistent with his wider moral theory.
Does this apply to wealth? As was shown, Green's presumption is for private ownership. Land was special because of its limited supply and its importance for all other property holdings. Hence, he argues that the problem is not with having wealth as such, but is with producing and distributing it. In his discussion, he highlights two difficult areas — freedom of bequest and free trade LPPO The problem is that they may both lead to great concentrations of wealth, and hence of power to restrict others' liberty LPPO Green argues that a necessary part of planning one's future for one's self is deciding the fate of one's wealth LPPO For example, part of holding private property is being able to act benevolently through giving to charity and other gifts.
This includes the right to determine the distribution of one's wealth immediately after one's death. By this, Green means that a man's actions are partially geared towards certain goals which are based on the existence and life of his children and friends. The removal of the individual's ability to execute his Will is, thus, a restriction on his will. In fact, Green is only really concerned with bequest. He is less sympathetic to inheritance for many reasons. For example, no child has laboured for the wealth he inherits. This is important because, as was shown, the positive condition for holding property is labour.
Also, Green states explicitly that a man is perfectly justified in not leaving his wealth to a child whose actions he disapproves of LPPO The right of the child in this passage LPPO is couched far more in terms of the right to being correctly brought up. He must argue this to be consistent. The important point about the right of bequest is that it enables a person to make a certain sort of plan which affects the manner in which he lives his life, and in which he raises his children, and makes explicit judgements about those he believes will outlive him.
Still, there is a problem in that such freedom of bequest helps to maintain the inequalities of wealth in society. The poor are apparently condemned to remain in poverty, because wealth can be kept within the same family, or, at best, class. Green argues that there are several reasons for believing that this concentration of wealth will be avoided, reduced or offset in society. Firstly, natural family affection will counter customs and laws which support the giving of wealth to one child only — usually the eldest son LPPO Indeed, a law of primogeniture is illegitimate as it inhibits a man's right to distribute his wealth as he wishes LPPO Presumably, this is a larger contribution than he would have made if he had not inherited the wealth.
The third reason, and the most promising for Green, is that it is legitimate for the state to tax the individual's income and wealth, on the grounds that it provides security for his holdings and acquisitions LPPO This is an important and powerful argument.
Yet, interestingly, Green's benefit theory denies an individual's absolute right to private property in capital. For taxation to be consistent with purely private property, the individual must in some sense give his consent for his money to be taken. However, for Green, there need not be even tacit consent for taxation to be legitimate. The state has a right to raise taxation from inheritance because of the benefits it gives, rather than the consent it receives.
He argues that redistributive taxation is legitimate, because the state protects the individual's rights to inheritance and bequest. Rights are only legitimate when they serve the development of the eternal consciousness.
A Radical Green Political Theory
Taxation can do this, and when it does, the state has right to tax the individual which overrides the latter's right to private property. There is a call for a right to gain private property at the same time as it is partially denied. Yet, Green's justification is always explicitly limited by the need to be of service to the eternal consciousness. Green's advocacy of redistributive taxation is, thus, consistent with his wider teleological theory. In this way, the self-interested activities of businessmen also serve the social good.
However, this is an incredible oversimplification of what actually happens in the market. For Green's assertion to be valid, he must assume that each individual has the same purchasing power.