{"title":"A Reply to Clark Wolf, Elizabeth Edenberg, and Helga Varden","authors":"Asha Leena Bhandary","doi":"10.1017/s001221732200035x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, I respond to symposium articles by Clark Wolf, Elizabeth Edenberg, and Helga Varden. With shared sympathies for anti-oppression liberalism and social contract theory, they urge me to develop the theory of liberal dependency care (LDC) in new directions — respectively, as a form of subject-centered justice, with a political liberal justification, and with a Kantian foundation for ‘private right.’ I respond by explicating the inclusivity that is built into the arrow of care map and the variety of contract theory I advance. Furthermore, I insist that anti-oppression liberalism need not formulate its claims in political liberal terms.","PeriodicalId":11232,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s001221732200035x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract In this article, I respond to symposium articles by Clark Wolf, Elizabeth Edenberg, and Helga Varden. With shared sympathies for anti-oppression liberalism and social contract theory, they urge me to develop the theory of liberal dependency care (LDC) in new directions — respectively, as a form of subject-centered justice, with a political liberal justification, and with a Kantian foundation for ‘private right.’ I respond by explicating the inclusivity that is built into the arrow of care map and the variety of contract theory I advance. Furthermore, I insist that anti-oppression liberalism need not formulate its claims in political liberal terms.
在这篇文章中，我回应了Clark Wolf, Elizabeth Edenberg和Helga Varden在研讨会上的文章。出于对反压迫自由主义和社会契约理论的共同同情，他们敦促我在新的方向上发展自由依赖关怀(LDC)理论——分别作为一种以主体为中心的正义形式，以政治自由主义为理由，并以康德的“私人权利”为基础。作为回应，我解释了关怀箭头图中的包容性，以及我提出的各种契约理论。此外，我坚持认为，反压迫自由主义不需要用政治自由主义的术语来表述其主张。
期刊介绍：
Dialogue is the official journal of the Canadian Philosophical Association. Its purpose is to publish high quality peer-reviewed scholarly articles, book symposia, critical notices, and book reviews in English and in French, in support of the Association"s mandate to promote philosophical scholarship and education. It is open to contributions in all branches of philosophy and from any philosophical perspective. Readers include professional teachers of philosophy, graduate students, and others with an interest in the field. Published for the Canadian Philosophical Association
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
