Jorge Sanchez-Perez

This dissertation is the first step in a larger research project aimed at bridging the gap between Western philosophy and Indigenous thought. Here, I identify a useful methodological approach to the social contract by analyzing the tradition under an historical lens. I highlight that, along with the justificatory capacities of the social contract, comes a great deal of modelling involved in different versions of the social contract. This modelling comes in the form of four pre-contractual elements that different authors model in different ways. I show how different authors choose different structural problems or injustices that such theories want to address, as well as normative commitments that their theories are committed to, a standard of considerability of interests that identifies whose interests matter for those deliberating the terms of the contract, and a contractual device. Once that has been established, I am able to provide some foundational elements for establishing a framework for the development of a theory of global justice. I focus on the first three pre-contractual elements.

Wil Waluchow’s notion of Community’s Constitutional Morality (CCM) was developed as a tool for the identification of moral norms and considered judgments that are in some way tied to a community’s constitutional law and practices. In this paper I first argue that even though the tool was conceived under a state-based paradigm, it also works on a global scale. Then, I show how by relying on this tool we can achieve two important and clearly differentiable goals. The first goal relates to efforts regarding the construction of global theories of justice. By using Waluchow’s CCM we can overcome what I call the problem of adjudication among differentexisting moral intuitions. That is, the need to choose between different and competing fundamental moral commitments that ought to guide our moral deliberations. Instead, by using CCM, we can identify Embodied Moral Intuitions that hold an epistemic advantage over Personal Moral Intuitions, which are commonly used to ground normative projects. The second goal relates to contemporary efforts to decolonize our perspectives about justice, domestic and global. By relying on Waluchow’s notion of CCM, the reality that Indigenous knowledge, despite it not having been properly acknowledged in most philosophical academic debates, is already a part of our debates about global justice becomes undeniable and a call for action to further expand our understanding of global political morality.

Given the reality of legal orders collapsing or breaking, this paper argues that a good explanation is needed to understand this phenomenon. It adopts a Hartian account of positivism and considers law as part of a larger set of social facts and orders. The paper analyzes the relationship between evil moral commitments and the law. It concludes by showing that it might be more conducive to analyzing the loss of faith in a legal system as an explanation for its collapse rather than thinking about problematic commitments to evil moral attitudes.

This paper argues for a broad definition of philosophical sources and how Indigenous traditional knowledge fits that definition. It concludes by showing how, following the previous two points, an Indigenous document such as the Huarochirí Manuscript can be considered a philosophical source by academic philosophers. The paper has three sections: the first deals with the methodological point of addressing what can be considered as philosophy. This section presents a conversational approach to philosophy. This approach, although broad, properly captures the practices of inquiring about philosophical issues as is commonly done in Western academic circles, but without excluding the practices of non-Western cultures from being labelled as philosophical. The second section argues for the analytical distinction between a philosophical source, a philosophical text, and a philosophical insight. It shows that what makes a philosophical source such are the philosophical insights that it can provide. The final section shows how the Huarochirí Manuscript has merits making it worthy of being considered a philosophical source and thus a relevant academic source for those working in the field of philosophy.

The field of Latin American philosophy has established itself as a relevant subfield of philosophical inquiry. However, there might be good reasons to consider that our focus on the subfield could have distracted us from considering another subfield that, although it might share some geographical proximity, does not share the same historical basic elements. In this paper, I argue for a possible and meaningful conceptual difference between Latin American Philosophy and Indigenous philosophy produced in Latin America. First, I raise what I call Mariátegui’s Solidarity Challenge to show that there might be some neglectful treatment of the philosophical views of different Indigenous groups. I then depart from Mariátegui and engage in a critical exercise to show that even he would be guilty of failing in his own solidarity demands. I follow that by drawing out some implications of the argument. I first sketch how this differentiation would play out against the political project of “Mestizaje,” a project that seems to inform some of the Latin American philosophical tradition. I then speculate about the kinds of duties that the field of Latin American philosophy might have towards the field of Indigenous Philosophy produced in Latin America.