Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1743453X0700300207
M. Boylan
This essay begins with a current case involving racial profiling and DNA testing. The two combine to raise some troubling issues involving the use of each in police investigation. It is argued that racial profiling is unethical and ought to be avoided and that DNA testing on general populations of innocent people is fraught with dangers.
{"title":"Genetic Profiling: Ethical Constraints upon Criminal Investigation Procedures","authors":"M. Boylan","doi":"10.1177/1743453X0700300207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1743453X0700300207","url":null,"abstract":"This essay begins with a current case involving racial profiling and DNA testing. The two combine to raise some troubling issues involving the use of each in police investigation. It is argued that racial profiling is unethical and ought to be avoided and that DNA testing on general populations of innocent people is fraught with dangers.","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116290641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.181
Stephen W. Welch
Abstract The paper advances an interpretation of political scandal and its place in democratic politics, taking the scandals of the ‘Watergate era’ in American politics as its evidential basis. The interpretation focuses on an aspect of political scandal that has been neglected in existing treatments, namely the politically constructed rather than epistemologically simple nature of scandalous ‘exposure’. The career of the ‘smoking gun’ in the Watergate era provides illustration. The paper goes on to relate political scandal as both symptom and stimulus to trends in late-modern democratization concerning ‘hyperpolitics’ (political contestation at all stages of the decision-making process) and ‘metainformation’ (information about the providers of information). On this basis, the generalization of scandal politics as a typical mode of democratic politics is suggested.
{"title":"Political Scandal and the Politics of Exposure: From Watergate to Lewinsky and beyond:","authors":"Stephen W. Welch","doi":"10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.181","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.181","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper advances an interpretation of political scandal and its place in democratic politics, taking the scandals of the ‘Watergate era’ in American politics as its evidential basis. The interpretation focuses on an aspect of political scandal that has been neglected in existing treatments, namely the politically constructed rather than epistemologically simple nature of scandalous ‘exposure’. The career of the ‘smoking gun’ in the Watergate era provides illustration. The paper goes on to relate political scandal as both symptom and stimulus to trends in late-modern democratization concerning ‘hyperpolitics’ (political contestation at all stages of the decision-making process) and ‘metainformation’ (information about the providers of information). On this basis, the generalization of scandal politics as a typical mode of democratic politics is suggested.","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"136 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134114217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1743453X0700300208
Alberto Spektorowski
The rise of regional identities in Europe is a process largely welcomed by liberals and especially applauded by radical democratic and postcolonial theorists. Yet this trend towards post-nation-state identity is not only attractive to democratic and postcolonial theories, but is also an integral part of current neo-fascist ideologies. This article examines the intellectual origins of right-wing ethnoregionalism and the idea of ‘exclusionist multiculturalism” through the works of Pierre Drieu La Rochelle and Alain de Benoist. It also compares the idea of exclusionist ‘regional’ multiculturalism with liberal multiculturalism and defends a democratic, civic republicanism as an alternative to both.
欧洲地区认同的兴起在很大程度上受到自由主义者的欢迎，尤其是激进民主和后殖民理论家的称赞。然而，这种后民族国家认同的趋势不仅对民主和后殖民理论具有吸引力，而且也是当前新法西斯主义意识形态的一个组成部分。本文通过拉罗谢尔(Pierre Drieu La Rochelle)和贝诺瓦(Alain de Benoist)的作品，考察右翼民族地区主义和“排外主义多元文化主义”思想的思想渊源。它还比较了排外主义的“区域”多元文化主义与自由主义的多元文化主义，并捍卫了民主的、公民的共和主义，作为两者的替代品。
{"title":"The Ideological Roots of Right-Wing Ethnoregionalism and the Civic Republican Critique","authors":"Alberto Spektorowski","doi":"10.1177/1743453X0700300208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1743453X0700300208","url":null,"abstract":"The rise of regional identities in Europe is a process largely welcomed by liberals and especially applauded by radical democratic and postcolonial theorists. Yet this trend towards post-nation-state identity is not only attractive to democratic and postcolonial theories, but is also an integral part of current neo-fascist ideologies. This article examines the intellectual origins of right-wing ethnoregionalism and the idea of ‘exclusionist multiculturalism” through the works of Pierre Drieu La Rochelle and Alain de Benoist. It also compares the idea of exclusionist ‘regional’ multiculturalism with liberal multiculturalism and defends a democratic, civic republicanism as an alternative to both.","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"29 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117047570","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1743453X0700300206
Giovanni De Grandis
The paper defends the theoretical strength and consistency of Rawls's constructivism, showing its ability to articulate and convincingly weave together several key ethical ideas; yet it questions the political relevance of this admirable normative architecture. After having illustrated Rawls's conception of moral agency and practical reason, the paper tackles two criticisms raised by Scheffler. First the allegation of naturalism based on Rawls's disdain of common sense ideas on desert is rebutted. It is then shown that, contrary to Scheffler's contention, Rawls takes proper account of our moral sentiments in the process of constructing his normative theory. Finally, the second criticism is assessed, namely the inability of Rawls's theory to increase consent around liberal policies. Despite disagreement with details of Scheffler's argument, it is suggested that the failure of recent normative liberal theories to have a political impact belies their inability to take into proper consideration the reality of politics. A more realistic appraisal of political life and of historical events and developments are called for if political philosophy wants to be something more than an academic exercise.
{"title":"Moral Actors and Political Spectators: On Some Virtues and Vices of Rawls's Liberalism","authors":"Giovanni De Grandis","doi":"10.1177/1743453X0700300206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1743453X0700300206","url":null,"abstract":"The paper defends the theoretical strength and consistency of Rawls's constructivism, showing its ability to articulate and convincingly weave together several key ethical ideas; yet it questions the political relevance of this admirable normative architecture. After having illustrated Rawls's conception of moral agency and practical reason, the paper tackles two criticisms raised by Scheffler. First the allegation of naturalism based on Rawls's disdain of common sense ideas on desert is rebutted. It is then shown that, contrary to Scheffler's contention, Rawls takes proper account of our moral sentiments in the process of constructing his normative theory. Finally, the second criticism is assessed, namely the inability of Rawls's theory to increase consent around liberal policies. Despite disagreement with details of Scheffler's argument, it is suggested that the failure of recent normative liberal theories to have a political impact belies their inability to take into proper consideration the reality of politics. A more realistic appraisal of political life and of historical events and developments are called for if political philosophy wants to be something more than an academic exercise.","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126043835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.200
Neil Hibbert
A prominent feature of the ongoing politics of welfare state restructuring is the development of workfare policies, defined as the attachment of a work condition to entitlement to basic income support. Workfare rejects unconditional rights of social citizenship, which formed the basis of social democratic political reforms and advocacy throughout the twentieth century. Nevertheless, workfare has received notable theoretical justification from egalitarian political theorists. This paper addresses four egalitarian arguments for workfare: the arguments from recipient self-respect, rational paternalism, fair reciprocity, and equal opportunity for active citizenship. It attempts to demonstrate the tensions between each and egalitarian justification, and it is argued that none of the arguments successfully ground workfare policies in an egalitarian framework.
{"title":"Is Workfare Egalitarian","authors":"Neil Hibbert","doi":"10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.200","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.200","url":null,"abstract":"A prominent feature of the ongoing politics of welfare state restructuring is the development of workfare policies, defined as the attachment of a work condition to entitlement to basic income support. Workfare rejects unconditional rights of social citizenship, which formed the basis of social democratic political reforms and advocacy throughout the twentieth century. Nevertheless, workfare has received notable theoretical justification from egalitarian political theorists. This paper addresses four egalitarian arguments for workfare: the arguments from recipient self-respect, rational paternalism, fair reciprocity, and equal opportunity for active citizenship. It attempts to demonstrate the tensions between each and egalitarian justification, and it is argued that none of the arguments successfully ground workfare policies in an egalitarian framework.","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130831032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1743453x0700300202
{"title":"Notes on Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/1743453x0700300202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1743453x0700300202","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121206135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.217
G. Grandis
Abstract The paper defends the theoretical strength and consistency of Rawls's constructivism, showing its ability to articulate and convincingly weave together several key ethical ideas; yet it questions the political relevance of this admirable normative architecture. After having illustrated Rawls's conception of moral agency and practical reason, the paper tackles two criticisms raised by Scheffler. First the allegation of naturalism based on Rawls's disdain of common sense ideas on desert is rebutted. It is then shown that, contrary to Scheffler's contention, Rawls takes proper account of our moral sentiments in the process of constructing his normative theory. Finally, the second criticism is assessed, namely the inability of Rawls's theory to increase consent around liberal policies. Despite disagreement with details of Scheffler's argument, it is suggested that the failure of recent normative liberal theories to have a political impact belies their inability to take into proper consideration the r...
{"title":"Moral Actors and Political Spectators: On Some Virtues and Vices of Rawls's Liberalism","authors":"G. Grandis","doi":"10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.217","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.217","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The paper defends the theoretical strength and consistency of Rawls's constructivism, showing its ability to articulate and convincingly weave together several key ethical ideas; yet it questions the political relevance of this admirable normative architecture. After having illustrated Rawls's conception of moral agency and practical reason, the paper tackles two criticisms raised by Scheffler. First the allegation of naturalism based on Rawls's disdain of common sense ideas on desert is rebutted. It is then shown that, contrary to Scheffler's contention, Rawls takes proper account of our moral sentiments in the process of constructing his normative theory. Finally, the second criticism is assessed, namely the inability of Rawls's theory to increase consent around liberal policies. Despite disagreement with details of Scheffler's argument, it is suggested that the failure of recent normative liberal theories to have a political impact belies their inability to take into proper consideration the r...","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122807379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1743453X0700300210
T. Shepperd
This is a very timely publication given recent developments in the international arena; the most obvious being the war on terror, the military interventions into Afghanistan and Iraq, and the continuing atrocities taking place in the Sudan. When we look at what is occurring in today’s world we see ample evidence of inhumanity. The once dominant ethical primacy of sovereignty has come under increasing attack with recent atrocities, and appeals for intervention on behalf of the international community call into question the notion of the ‘privacy’ of states – an analogue for their sovereignty – as a moral good. However, the act of intervention itself has been shrouded in controversy, as have the determinants of human rights. In Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics: Public and Private Catherine Lu sets out to contribute to the normative debate relating to the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. She introduces some key concepts, most notably that of ‘privacy’, and ties them to the ethics of intervention. Her central theoretical construct revolves around the public/private distinction, a worthy line of investigation that remains largely unexplained in International Relations (IR) discourse. Lu examines the construction of certain concepts which we employ to illuminate the normative structure of international society, for example state sovereignty, national interest, human rights, but most im portantly the international/domestic distinction. She offers an examination of the public/private distinction at the international level and how it relates to legitimacy. Put simply, a central theme of the book relates to the construction of a morally coherent account of the distinction that serves to shape the public and private lives of states. Just and Unjust Interventions is divided into eight chapters. It begins with an introduction and subsequent investigation into the debates relating to the public/private distinction, and the structure of agency thus entailed. Following this, in chapter 2, Lu considers the applicability of such a construct to IR,
{"title":"Book Review: Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics: Public and Private","authors":"T. Shepperd","doi":"10.1177/1743453X0700300210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1743453X0700300210","url":null,"abstract":"This is a very timely publication given recent developments in the international arena; the most obvious being the war on terror, the military interventions into Afghanistan and Iraq, and the continuing atrocities taking place in the Sudan. When we look at what is occurring in today’s world we see ample evidence of inhumanity. The once dominant ethical primacy of sovereignty has come under increasing attack with recent atrocities, and appeals for intervention on behalf of the international community call into question the notion of the ‘privacy’ of states – an analogue for their sovereignty – as a moral good. However, the act of intervention itself has been shrouded in controversy, as have the determinants of human rights. In Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics: Public and Private Catherine Lu sets out to contribute to the normative debate relating to the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. She introduces some key concepts, most notably that of ‘privacy’, and ties them to the ethics of intervention. Her central theoretical construct revolves around the public/private distinction, a worthy line of investigation that remains largely unexplained in International Relations (IR) discourse. Lu examines the construction of certain concepts which we employ to illuminate the normative structure of international society, for example state sovereignty, national interest, human rights, but most im portantly the international/domestic distinction. She offers an examination of the public/private distinction at the international level and how it relates to legitimacy. Put simply, a central theme of the book relates to the construction of a morally coherent account of the distinction that serves to shape the public and private lives of states. Just and Unjust Interventions is divided into eight chapters. It begins with an introduction and subsequent investigation into the debates relating to the public/private distinction, and the structure of agency thus entailed. Following this, in chapter 2, Lu considers the applicability of such a construct to IR,","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131222549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.288
T. Shepperd
{"title":"Catherine Lu ,Just and Unjust Interventions in World Politics: Public and Private(New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 2006), 224 pp., £45/$75 hardcover.","authors":"T. Shepperd","doi":"10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3366/PER.2007.3.2.288","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126175932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-10-01DOI: 10.1177/1743453X0700300203
Shaun P. Young
Despite the relative ease and regularity with which it is used by policymakers and the functional role that it often plays in the policy development process, the concept of reasonableness has essentially been overlooked by public policy scholars in their analysis of the factors influencing the development of public policy. However, the maintenance of the analytical status quo is likely to prove increasingly difficult. As the issues that governments must address become increasingly complicated and controversial and it becomes correspondingly more difficult to identify easily or clearly the most appropriate response to associated problems, policymakers will inevitably be forced to place greater reliance on the concept of reasonableness as the final court of appeal when seeking to determine the attractiveness and acceptability of policy decisions. Accordingly, it seems ‘reasonable’ to suggest that greater, explicit consideration be given to the concept of reasonableness and the role it does and should play in the development of public policy. This article simultaneously offers both a brief overview of the current situation with respect to the meaningful consideration of the concept of reasonableness by public policy scholars and practitioners and a preliminary argument for a reconsideration of the analytical status quo.
{"title":"Considering Reasonableness","authors":"Shaun P. Young","doi":"10.1177/1743453X0700300203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1743453X0700300203","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the relative ease and regularity with which it is used by policymakers and the functional role that it often plays in the policy development process, the concept of reasonableness has essentially been overlooked by public policy scholars in their analysis of the factors influencing the development of public policy. However, the maintenance of the analytical status quo is likely to prove increasingly difficult. As the issues that governments must address become increasingly complicated and controversial and it becomes correspondingly more difficult to identify easily or clearly the most appropriate response to associated problems, policymakers will inevitably be forced to place greater reliance on the concept of reasonableness as the final court of appeal when seeking to determine the attractiveness and acceptability of policy decisions. Accordingly, it seems ‘reasonable’ to suggest that greater, explicit consideration be given to the concept of reasonableness and the role it does and should play in the development of public policy. This article simultaneously offers both a brief overview of the current situation with respect to the meaningful consideration of the concept of reasonableness by public policy scholars and practitioners and a preliminary argument for a reconsideration of the analytical status quo.","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"899 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116391652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：