In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 RIGHTS AN D MAJORITIES : ROUSSEAU REVISITE D JEREMY WALDRON l. The distinction between politica l theory and politica l philosoph y often seem s artificial . Th e tw o term s pic k ou t muc h th e sam e discipline pursue d unde r th e auspice s o f differen t academi c departments. Bu t one topic where there has been a considerable divergence o f emphasi s betwee n politica l theorist s an d politica l philosophers—or betwee n thos e who study politica l moralit y i n philosophy department s an d thos e who stud y i t in department s of politica l science—i s th e topi c o f fundamenta l rights . Thos e who believe i n right s hol d th e vie w that individual s an d minori ties have certain interest s that they can press , certain claims the y can mak e agains t th e res t o f th e communit y tha t ar e entitle d t o respect without furthe r ado . Of course this view is controversial: some believ e tha t individual s an d minoritie s hav e right s i n thi s sense, other s d o not , an d eve n amon g thos e wh o d o consider I shoul d lik e t o than k Rober t Cooter , Joh n Chapman , Kristi n Luker , Ki m Scheppele, Phili p Selznick , Susa n Sterett , an d Jacki e Steven s fo r thei r hel p i n discussing thes e issues . A n earlie r versio n o f thi s chapte r wa s rea d i n th e Department o f Philosophy , Stat e Universit y o f Ne w Yor k a t Binghamton . I a m grateful t o the other participant s fo r thei r comments an d suggestions . Rights and Majorities: Rousseau Revisited 45 able disagreemen t exist s abou t th e natur e o f thos e rights . Th e divergence I a m intereste d in , betwee n politica l philosopher s and politica l theorists , involves tw o different way s of character izing that controversy . For philosophers , th e controversy ha s usually been character ized a s a choic e betwee n individua l right s an d som e versio n o f utilitarian theory . The y hav e take n th e controvers y t o b e on e about justification. I s utilitarianism , a s i t claim s t o be , a n ade quate theor y o f politica l justification , o r doe s i t nee d t o b e supplemented (o r indee d replaced ) b y a n independentl y grounded theor y o f individual rights ? For politica l theorists , th e contras t i s characteristicall y no t with utilitarianis m bu t wit h majoritaria n democracy . Politica l theorists ar e intereste d i n form s o f politica l decisio n making , and the y tak e th e argumen t t o b e abou t politica l legitimacy . I s there nothin g tha t canno t b e mad e legitimat e b y a majorit y decision? O r shoul d w e recogniz e limits , base d o n individua l rights, on what a majority ca n commit a society to do ? The contras t betwee n justification an d legitimac y ma y appea r bewildering a t first, particularl y sinc e bot h ar e use d her e i n a normative sense. 1 To as k whether a decision i s justified i s to ask whether i t is, on th e merits, the right decision; it is to look at th e reasons weighing in favor o f the course of action decided upon . To as k whether a decision i s politically legitimate, however, i s to raise a procedura l question ; i t is to as k whethe r i t was take n i n the way such decisions ought to be taken.2 We need a distinction between justification an d legitimacy , particularly in a democrati c context, becaus e w e nee d som e wa y o f distinguishin g betwee n the...

Share