Can a law be unjust and still be legitimate? And if we believe a law is unjust, does that mean the state has no right to enforce it? In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, Jonathan Quong discusses his new book Political Philosophy: The Puzzle of Legitimate Injustice which examines the uneasy relationship between two central concepts of political philosophy: justice and legitimacy. He explains why disagreement about justice is an unavoidable part of living together in free and pluralistic societies, and why even well-functioning democracies will inevitably produce laws and policies that some of us have good reason to regard as unjust. How, then, should societies deal with these unavoidable political mistakes?
Quong argues that rather than seeing justice and legitimacy as competing values, we should think about how the burdens created by our collective disagreements can be shared fairly. The conversation explores why some unjust laws may nevertheless remain legitimate, when injustice crosses the line into illegitimacy, and how we might distinguish reasonable political disagreement from laws rooted in prejudice, corruption, or self-interest. Finally, we discuss what this perspective can tell us about contemporary debates ranging from immigration and racial injustice to the growing role of artificial intelligence in government.
Jonathan Quong is professor of philosophy and law at the University of Southern California. He is the author of Liberalism without Perfection and The Morality of Defensive Force.
The interview was conducted by Alexandra Kardos. Alina Young edited the audio file.
