Analysis Of Daniel Philpott's Just And Unjust Peace

Recent history is repleat with egregious, widespread and often systematic wrongdoings: genocide, torture, and mass killing. Cambodia, South Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, and Guatemala are examples where these grave political injustices have occurred. Histories of violence and humanitarian atrocities leave marks of damage, despair, and pain that can only justice can begin to heal. Hence the central question of Daniel Philpott’s book Just and Unjust Peace: An Ethic of Political Reconciliation: “What does justice consist of in the wake of its massive despoliation?” The answer, Philpott argues, is political reconciliation. However, in investigating two of Philpott’s six practices of reconciliation—apology and forgiveness—I argue that while the philosophy of political reconciliation is an aspirational goal, it is by no means a perfect process because the practices will not necessarily have the same implications for all parties involved. Compared with the traditional model of retributive justice, restorative justice, and by extension reconciliation, offers a more positive and constructive approach

It is not something that the victim owes or to which the perpetrator has a right. In forgiving, the victim raises a dissident voice against revenge. Like all dissidence, forgiveness purports both to destroy existing injustice and to construct better politics” (Philpott, 251). Forgiveness may be one of the least understood and yet potentially most necessary act required in order for a society to fully break a cycle of violence and totally reconcile. Forgiveness is central to Christian doctrine and plays a key role in advocacy by major religious leaders in response to mass violence—none more so than Archbishop Desmond Tutu following the end of the Apartheid in South