Size Matters

I want to comment on the scales of morality Nagel has presented.

Early on, Nagel states that "the link between justice and sovereignty is something common to a wide range of conceptions of justice: they all depend on the coordinated conduct of large numbers of people, which cannot be achieved without law backed up by a monopoly of force" (115). He goes on to say that this force must be "assured" by some sort of "external incentive provided by the sovereign" (115). Importantly, he argues, that at "least among sizable populations, [this assurance] cannot be provided by voluntary conventions supported solely by the mutual recognition of a common interest" (115). That is, once a society becomes large enough, people are too disconnected to possess the strong ties which hold small communities together. Naturally, then, it is more important for the sovereign of a large state to coercively enforce justice in lieu of the powerful social norms found in smaller communities. This logic reminded me of Montesquieu when he was describing the conditions for a republic. Montesquieu argued that in large republic, the "public good is sacrificed to a thousand private views," and therefore a smaller republic is best for sustaining the social norms necessary for its survival. Oftentimes, these are the norms necessary for enforcing or encouraging beneficent actions and behavior. To illustrate this point more concretely, imagine you are walking down the street and see a small child drowning in a puddle. To save the child would be an act of beneficence, not of justice (if we adopted a Smithian view). Now imagine this scenario 1) in a small, tight-knit community and 2) in a crowded, busy city. While the child could be saved in either case, it seems far more likely that the child will be left to drown in the city. Numbers matter. Seemingly, there is a relationship between population size and our capacity to empathize.  It kind of reminds me of the Great Gatsby quote when Daisy says: “And I like large parties. They’re so intimate. At small parties there isn’t any privacy.” At large parties, it's easy to withdraw yourself, find your small niche of friends, and ignore the vast majority of people; at small parties, you can't -- you're almost forced to participate and accord to the norms of the party. Similarly, the small child will more likely drown at the large party without the same level of social accountability. But why does size matter? Why is it that the same person who saves the child in Montana will utterly ignore him splashing around in New York? Is it pluralistic ignorance, believing that someone else will save the child?

But now I want to understand what a true, global order would look like. To some extent, Montesquieu's question was answered with a federal republic -- that is, you combine the best of both worlds (empire and republic) under a federal system which balanced the interests of small communities with the collective interests. Would a federal system work on a global stage? Or would a European Union union work better? The United Nations currently functions similarly to the government in the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation -- that is, it can do some things, but it is extremely limited by its priority to respect the sovereignty of nations (as Nagel covers), its reluctance to use force (not to mention the ridiculous politics embedded in the veto powers on the Security Council) and it's reliance on the voluntary funding from nations. I think Nagel rightly asserts that Human Rights at a socioeconomic level can only be achieved through some sort of global order that is created in an illegitimate way. The question is, how would that order be organized? Would we modify the U.N.? Would it add to the level of federalism such that our global power would become the supreme law of all lands? Could the constitution of this new order be founded on Amartya Sen's 'development as freedom'? Regardless, it would be necessary to overcome the issues inherent in governing 7 billion people - how do you make people care? Even if there was a global order, how do you overcome the degradation of association between members due to sheer scale? Perhaps technology can flatten the world and bring us together, entice our empathetic senses, and unite us into a global order.