Citizenship, Ability, and Contribution

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2023-01-31 DOI:10.1017/S0031819122000420
D. DeVidi, Catherine Klausen, Christopher Lowry
{"title":"Citizenship, Ability, and Contribution","authors":"D. DeVidi, Catherine Klausen, Christopher Lowry","doi":"10.1017/S0031819122000420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract People with significant cognitive disabilities and others who advocate on their behalf routinely state their claims in terms of enabling people to claim their full citizenship. Informed by the results of a study by one of the authors, we draw attention to some of these claims, and discuss what a just society ought to do so that members with significant cognitive disabilities see themselves – and are seen by others – as full, and therefore equal, citizens. Several political philosophers have sought to develop disability-inclusive accounts of justice, using three strategies: (1) defend a permissive understanding of who is owed justice by rejecting contribution to social cooperation as a necessary condition; (2) defend a permissive understanding of what counts as contribution; and (3) argue that some demands of justice are owed to all, while others are owed only to cooperators. We defend a version of the second strategy, arguing that the relevant notion of contribution requires that it be something the agent chooses to do because they know it to be valued by someone else, and we argue that the third strategy also has a role to play.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"98 1","pages":"165 - 190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000420","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract People with significant cognitive disabilities and others who advocate on their behalf routinely state their claims in terms of enabling people to claim their full citizenship. Informed by the results of a study by one of the authors, we draw attention to some of these claims, and discuss what a just society ought to do so that members with significant cognitive disabilities see themselves – and are seen by others – as full, and therefore equal, citizens. Several political philosophers have sought to develop disability-inclusive accounts of justice, using three strategies: (1) defend a permissive understanding of who is owed justice by rejecting contribution to social cooperation as a necessary condition; (2) defend a permissive understanding of what counts as contribution; and (3) argue that some demands of justice are owed to all, while others are owed only to cooperators. We defend a version of the second strategy, arguing that the relevant notion of contribution requires that it be something the agent chooses to do because they know it to be valued by someone else, and we argue that the third strategy also has a role to play.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公民身份、能力和贡献
摘要患有严重认知障碍的人和其他代表他们辩护的人通常会陈述他们的主张,使人们能够申请他们的完全公民身份。根据其中一位作者的一项研究结果,我们提请人们注意其中的一些说法,并讨论一个公正的社会应该做些什么,让有严重认知障碍的成员看到自己——也被他人看到——是完整的,因此是平等的公民。几位政治哲学家试图用三种策略来发展包容残疾的正义观:(1)通过拒绝将对社会合作的贡献作为必要条件,来捍卫对谁应该得到正义的宽容理解;(2) 捍卫对什么是贡献的宽容理解;以及(3)认为正义的一些要求是对所有人的,而另一些则只对合作者的。我们为第二种策略的一个版本辩护,认为相关的贡献概念要求代理人选择这样做,因为他们知道这会受到他人的重视,我们认为第三种策略也可以发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Philosophy is the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, which was founded in 1925 to build bridges between specialist philosophers and a wider educated public. The journal continues to fulfil a dual role: it is one of the leading academic journals of philosophy, but it also serves the philosophical interests of specialists in other fields (law, language, literature and the arts, medicine, politics, religion, science, education, psychology, history) and those of the informed general reader. Contributors are required to avoid needless technicality of language and presentation. The institutional subscription includes two supplements.
期刊最新文献
Dark Futures: Toward a Philosophical Archaeology of Hope Mobility, Migration, and Mobile Migration Feeling Responsible: On Regret for Others’ Harms Being Open-Minded about Open-Mindedness P.F. Strawson on Punishment and the Hypothesis of Symbolic Retribution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1