Introduction to Political Philosophy

Eminent Domain

As you read the material for the next class, keep the questions below in mind. To answer these questions you will have to reflect critically on what you have read and possibly re-read important passages. Keep in mind that there are two basic kinds of information that you need to look for in the readings.

  1. What are the main points or conclusions that an author accepts with respect to a particular issue?
  2. What are the reasons or important considerations that lead the author to accept that conclusion?

For our purposes, it is information of the latter sort (2) that will be our primary concern since our most basic task is to evaluate the reasons that are offered to support accepting one possible conclusion about an issue, rather than another. Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to speak intelligently to these issues in the next class meeting.

Reading:

  • Dahlia Lithwick, “Condemn-Nation: This was your land, but now it’s my land” (handout).
  • Kelo v. City of New London, Justice Stevens’ Ruling and Justice O’Connor’s Dissent (handouts).

Questions:

  1. When reading a Supreme Court decision, try to distinguish the political and moral reasoning from the legal reasoning. Legal reasoning will say “we made this decision because of the following laws, sections from the constitution, or previous court decisions.” This reasoning is immaterial for our purposes, as the laws, constitution, or previous decisions may be unjust. Rather focus on the political and moral reasons for why the current decision is made or why the laws, constitution, previous decisions being applied are themselves just and should be upheld.
  2. Consider the facts of the case, as presented by Justice Stevens. How would Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle adjudicate this case? In particular, does the social utility of eminent domain here outweigh the social utility of liberty of ownership? Would Bentham’s own Utilitarian Calculus agree?
  3. What is Justice Steven’s political and moral (not legal) argument that defends his ruling that the City of New London justly used eminent domain? Is this an argument grounded on utilitarian principles (either Bentham’s or Mill’s)?
  4. What is Justice O’Connor’s political and moral (not legal) argument that says the city was not right in doing so? Is this an argument grounded on utilitarian principles (either Bentham’s or Mill’s)?
  5. Justices Stevens and O’Connor cannot both be right. While they certainly share some premises (i.e., neither rejects the “Takings Clause” of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment as unjust), they disagree in their conclusions. Therefore, where exactly in their arguments, which justify these different conclusions, do they disagree?
  6. Which position is supported by the strongest and most compelling argument?

 

I love Apache! So should you!