Две критики към разпределителната справедливост: Уолзър, Алтюсер и Жирар
Two critiques of distributive justice: Walzer, Althusser and Girard

Summary/Abstract: This text is dedicated to the concept of “distributive justice” of the American political philosopher Michael Walzer. It carries out a critique of the concept on the one hand, by following the logic and sources used in Walzer’s book “Spheres of Justice” (1983), and on the other – by juxtaposing his conception with the conceptions of other philosophers and sociologists. In three main points the book of Walzer follows the tradition of American pragmatism. Firstly, it considers opinions as habits and considers doubt as unnecessary if not caused by a concrete reason. Secondly, the effects of justice must be somewhere around us and shall not be imposed from the outside or by scholarly inventions. Third, political solutions must take the shortest path. The last statement has the greatest significance on the way distributive justice shall distribute the goods, or, as I call it in the article, the compensatory logic of Walzer. To put it shortly, the proper way of resolving a social tension is the following: when a group of people monopolizes an important good, a new good appears to soothe the tension. This makes Walzer an important anti-radical thinker and one not without merit. Yet according to his conception, the statements would be too soft and compensatory. The second round of the critique suggested is a comparison of Walzer to a radical Marxist thinker, the French philosopher Louis Althusser. Althusser’s concept of all-pervasive ideology, coalesced with the economic order, is pitted against the all-pervasive negotiation of Walzer. Then comes a comparison with another compensatory logic, that of the French sociologist Rene Girrard, who researches the compensatory role of sacrificial rituals in primitive societies. Finally, the article makes use of the interpretation of Jürgen Habermas by a Bulgarian political philosopher, Dimitar Vatsov.

• Details
• Contents