As with anything Oscar Schachter writes, this is a careful, craftsmanlike, and informative discussion. Here he seeks to apply historical, legal, and moral criteria to the problem of justice in international distribution of at least those things that are perceived as not firmly distributed—e.g., the resources of the ocean. Schachter also discusses claims concerning the pricing of raw materials, claims of future v. present generations, etc.
A book such as this necessarily raises more questions than it answers. Schachter’s important contribution lies in his ability to define the issues clearly enough so that the outlines of alternative answers heave into sight. But it is a treacherous sea, and, while I admire the lucidity and carefulness of the discussion, I rarely agree with it. Let me mention just two among many disagreements. I cannot see how need can be transformed into entitlement, as Schachter comes near to doing, a) Is “need” more than a pompous word for desire or claim—i.e., is there some objective standard to determine it? b) If need istobea basis for right, why not might? (We would have an objective standard there.) Do I sense some sort of natural law idea lurking here? What sort? I suspect, one that wears the rationalistic disguise of John Rawls’s New England piety. Must we universalize it? I am hard to convince that needing or wanting entitles me to anything—though I am willing to admit that there is a notion of moral justice in which need plays a role. But Schachter is not discussing it—or is he?
Comments