The Imperative Of Segregation Exposed In Elizabeth Anderson's The Republic

Many individuals provide different perspectives on the subject of ideally just society. Throughout the book “The Republic” by Plato, Socrates states descriptions of how a just society must be and how it must be enforced by the individuals living in the society. In addition, Elizabeth Anderson’s book “The Imperative of Segregation,” she provides a different outlook from Socrates perspectives. She describes a society under non-ideal or ideal theory. Furthemore, Elizabeth Anderson believes that people does not necessarily have to understand the concept of an ideal just society in order to make the society better or more just. On the other hand, in response to Anderson’s belief, Socrates may state that knowledge and understanding of the concept

She states “The hope of black nationalists and left multiculturalists is that racial equality can be achieved through, or at least notwithstanding, substantial racial segregation.” (Pg. 2) She believes that racial segregation will only bring forth the isolation of certain groups from access to public and private resources such as the hospital, education, or even a place in a nice park. Racial segregation would also reinforce discrimination on black people from the jobs that white people may have that are more competitive. Thus, making it harder for them to excel on their abilities. Furthermore, she states that “segregation also undermines democracy.” (Pg. 2) In a democratic society, one has the privilege to a just and equal freedom like everyone else. Furthermore, Anderson states that integration is an “imperative of justice.. It is also a positive good.” (Pg. 2) Integration would bring positive feedbacks socially, economically and the overall well-being of a society will be boosted. In contrast, Socrates makes a valid point on creating a society under different

Firstly, she states “Nonideal theory is usually regarded as derivative of ideal theory. Don’t we first need to know what an ideally just society would be, to identify the ways our current society falls short? Shouldn’t the principles for an ideal society be settled first, so that we can work out how to get there from here?” (Pg. 3) She provides these questions to indicate ways of how individuals would normally think about how societies can be better. However, Anderson states that these questions of ideas are not preferable in order to make a society better or more just. This idea of acknowledging the ideals of how to make a society better is not reflective to the reality of how individuals live their lives in a society. She adds “We are not jarred into critical thinking about our conduct until we confront a problem that stops us from carrying on unreflectively. We recognize the existence of a problem before we have any idea of what would be the best or more just.” (Pg. 3) The idea that individuals usually think about the solutions of a problem before even thinking about ways to make a society better before problems arise is seemed to be unreliable according to Anderson. Furthermore, she states “Nor do we need to know what is ideal in order to improve. Knowledge of the better does not require knowledge of the best.” (Pg. 3) Finally,