首页 > 最新文献

Politics Philosophy & Economics最新文献

英文 中文
A Farewell Editorial 告别社论
2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI: 10.1177/1470594x231205439
Tom Christiano, Jon Riley, Andrew Williams
{"title":"A Farewell Editorial","authors":"Tom Christiano, Jon Riley, Andrew Williams","doi":"10.1177/1470594x231205439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x231205439","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135566701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
How to talk back: hate speech, misinformation, and the limits of salience 如何反击:仇恨言论、错误信息和知名度的局限
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231167593
Rachel Fraser
Hate speech and misinformation are rife. How to respond? Counterspeech proposals say: with more and better speech. This paper considers the treatment of counterspeech in Maxime Lepoutre’s Democratic Speech In Divided Times. Lepoutre provides a nuanced defence of counterspeech. Some counterspeech, he grants, is flawed. But, he says: counterspeech can be debugged. Once we understand why counterspeech fails – when fail it does – we can engineer more effective counterspeech strategies. Lepoutre argues that the failures of counterspeech can be theorised using the ideology of salience. Negative counterspeech fails because it reinforces the salience of the very ideas or associations that it contests. His solution? Positive counterspeech – a form of counterspeech which avoids the salience trap. I argue that the salience paradigm is ill-suited to theorise the failures of counterspeech. I suggest some alternatives. Further, I show that these alternative paradigms make importantly different practical recommendations – recommendations concerning how we ought to engineer our counterspeech – from those issued by the salience paradigm.
仇恨言论和错误信息普遍存在。如何应对?反演讲建议说:用更多更好的演讲。本文考察了马克西姆·勒普莱特《分裂时代的民主演讲》中反言论的处理。Lepoutre为反言论提供了细致入微的辩护。他承认,一些反言论是有缺陷的。但是,他说:反言论是可以被窃听的。一旦我们理解了反言语失败的原因——当它失败时——我们就可以设计出更有效的反言语策略。Lepoutre认为,反言论的失败可以用突出性的意识形态来理论化。消极的反驳之所以失败,是因为它强化了它所反对的观点或联想的突出性。他的解决方案?正面反语-一种避免突出陷阱的反语形式。我认为,突出性范式不适合将反言语的失败理论化。我建议一些替代方案。此外,我还表明,这些替代范式提出了与突出性范式所提出的重要不同的实际建议——关于我们应该如何设计我们的反语的建议。
{"title":"How to talk back: hate speech, misinformation, and the limits of salience","authors":"Rachel Fraser","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231167593","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231167593","url":null,"abstract":"Hate speech and misinformation are rife. How to respond? Counterspeech proposals say: with more and better speech. This paper considers the treatment of counterspeech in Maxime Lepoutre’s Democratic Speech In Divided Times. Lepoutre provides a nuanced defence of counterspeech. Some counterspeech, he grants, is flawed. But, he says: counterspeech can be debugged. Once we understand why counterspeech fails – when fail it does – we can engineer more effective counterspeech strategies. Lepoutre argues that the failures of counterspeech can be theorised using the ideology of salience. Negative counterspeech fails because it reinforces the salience of the very ideas or associations that it contests. His solution? Positive counterspeech – a form of counterspeech which avoids the salience trap. I argue that the salience paradigm is ill-suited to theorise the failures of counterspeech. I suggest some alternatives. Further, I show that these alternative paradigms make importantly different practical recommendations – recommendations concerning how we ought to engineer our counterspeech – from those issued by the salience paradigm.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"119 1","pages":"315 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86180972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Democratic speech in divided times: An introduction 分裂时期的民主党演讲:介绍
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231179666
Maxime Lepoutre
This is the introduction to the symposium on Maxime Lepoutre, Democratic Speech in Divided Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). The symposium contains articles by Paul Billingham, Rachel Fraser, and Michael Hannon, and a response by the author.
这是对马克西姆·勒普特研讨会的介绍,《分裂时代的民主演讲》(牛津:牛津大学出版社,2021年)。研讨会包括Paul Billingham, Rachel Fraser和Michael Hannon的文章,以及作者的回应。
{"title":"Democratic speech in divided times: An introduction","authors":"Maxime Lepoutre","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231179666","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231179666","url":null,"abstract":"This is the introduction to the symposium on Maxime Lepoutre, Democratic Speech in Divided Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). The symposium contains articles by Paul Billingham, Rachel Fraser, and Michael Hannon, and a response by the author.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":"290 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76340735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Discursive optimism defended 为话语乐观主义辩护
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-06-04 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231179665
Maxime Lepoutre
This article defends the democratic ideal of inclusive public discourse, as articulated in Democratic Speech in Divided Times, against the critiques offered by Billingham, Fraser, and Hannon. Specifically, it considers and responds to three core challenges. The first challenge argues, notably, that the “shared reasons” constraint should either apply everywhere or not at all, and that, if this constraint is to apply in divided circumstances, its justificatory constituency must be idealized. The second challenge contends that the resistance of hate speech and misinformation to counterspeech cannot adequately be explained by considerations of salience, and therefore cannot adequately by countered (as I suggest) by “positive” forms of counterspeech. Finally, the last challenge objects that the ideal of inclusive public discourse I defend remains, as pessimists allege, excessively idealistic.
本文捍卫了《分裂时代的民主演讲》中所阐述的包容性公共话语的民主理想,反对比林汉姆、弗雷泽和汉农提出的批评。具体来说,它考虑并应对三个核心挑战。值得注意的是,第一个挑战认为,“共同原因”约束要么适用于任何地方,要么根本不适用,而且,如果这个约束要应用于分裂的情况,那么它的正当选民必须被理想化。第二个挑战认为,仇恨言论和错误信息对反言论的抵制不能用显著性的考虑来充分解释,因此也不能用(如我所建议的)“积极”形式的反言论来充分反击。最后,我所捍卫的包容性公共话语的理想,正如悲观主义者所宣称的那样,仍然是过于理想主义的。
{"title":"Discursive optimism defended","authors":"Maxime Lepoutre","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231179665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231179665","url":null,"abstract":"This article defends the democratic ideal of inclusive public discourse, as articulated in Democratic Speech in Divided Times, against the critiques offered by Billingham, Fraser, and Hannon. Specifically, it considers and responds to three core challenges. The first challenge argues, notably, that the “shared reasons” constraint should either apply everywhere or not at all, and that, if this constraint is to apply in divided circumstances, its justificatory constituency must be idealized. The second challenge contends that the resistance of hate speech and misinformation to counterspeech cannot adequately be explained by considerations of salience, and therefore cannot adequately by countered (as I suggest) by “positive” forms of counterspeech. Finally, the last challenge objects that the ideal of inclusive public discourse I defend remains, as pessimists allege, excessively idealistic.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"6 1","pages":"357 - 374"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86727508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Lockdowns and the ethics of intergenerational compensation 封锁和代际补偿的伦理
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-05-30 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231178497
K. H. Kalewold
Lockdowns were a morally and medically appropriate anti-contagion policy to stop the spread of Covid. However, lockdowns came with considerable costs. Specifically, lockdowns imposed harms and losses upon the young in order to benefit the elderly, who were at the highest risk of severe illness and death from Covid. This represented a shifting of the (epidemiological) burden of Covid for the elderly to a systemic burden of lockdown upon the young. This article argues that even if lockdowns were a morally permissible response to Covid, the harms and losses they imposed on the young ground a claim of compensation. I defend an intergenerational compensation argument that defends a claim for an egalitarian intergenerational transfer to compensate the young for the harms of lockdown.
封锁是一种道德上和医学上合适的抗传染政策,可以阻止新冠病毒的传播。然而,封锁带来了相当大的成本。具体来说,封锁给年轻人造成了伤害和损失,以使老年人受益,老年人患重病和死于新冠肺炎的风险最高。这表明,老年人的(流行病学)疫情负担已转变为年轻人的系统性封锁负担。本文认为,即使封锁是道德上允许的应对Covid的措施,它们给年轻人造成的伤害和损失也有理由要求赔偿。我为代际补偿论点辩护,该论点支持一种平等主义的代际转移,以补偿年轻人受到封锁的伤害。
{"title":"Lockdowns and the ethics of intergenerational compensation","authors":"K. H. Kalewold","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231178497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231178497","url":null,"abstract":"Lockdowns were a morally and medically appropriate anti-contagion policy to stop the spread of Covid. However, lockdowns came with considerable costs. Specifically, lockdowns imposed harms and losses upon the young in order to benefit the elderly, who were at the highest risk of severe illness and death from Covid. This represented a shifting of the (epidemiological) burden of Covid for the elderly to a systemic burden of lockdown upon the young. This article argues that even if lockdowns were a morally permissible response to Covid, the harms and losses they imposed on the young ground a claim of compensation. I defend an intergenerational compensation argument that defends a claim for an egalitarian intergenerational transfer to compensate the young for the harms of lockdown.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"41 1","pages":"271 - 289"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86443099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Sharing reasons and emotions in a non-ideal discursive system 在一个非理想的话语系统中分享理由和情感
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-04-10 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231167594
Paul Billingham
This paper critically evaluates two aspects of Maxime Lepoutre's important book, Democratic Speech in Divided Times. First, I examine Lepoutre's approach to the shared reasons constraint—the requirement to offer shared reasons within public deliberation—and the place of emotions in public discourse. I argue that he, and indeed all who adopt such a highly inclusivist approach, face a dilemma that pushes him either to apply the shared reasons constraint more widely than he desires or to abandon it completely. I chart a course through this dilemma, but one that involves significant revisions to Lepoutre's position, particularly regarding the need for idealization. Second, I consider Lepoutre's use of the systemic approach to public discourse, which is central to many of his arguments, including his responses to critics of the discursive democratic ideal. Using his arguments regarding angry speech and dogmatic group cognition as illustrative, I highlight the somewhat speculative nature of these systemic arguments, which often rely on conjectures about how the system might operate, how its parts fit together, and how the system as a whole might attenuate seemingly problematic features of its component parts. This limits the ultimate persuasiveness of Lepoutre's responses to skepticism about democratic speech in our divided times.
本文批判性地评价了马克西姆·勒普特的重要著作《分裂时代的民主演讲》的两个方面。首先,我考察了Lepoutre对共同理由约束的方法——在公共审议中提供共同理由的要求——以及情感在公共话语中的地位。我认为,他,以及实际上所有采取这种高度包容性方法的人,都面临着一个两难境地,迫使他要么比他希望的更广泛地应用共同理由约束,要么完全放弃它。我在这个困境中画了一条路线,但其中包括对Lepoutre的立场的重大修改,特别是关于理想化的需要。其次,我考虑了勒浦特对公共话语的系统方法的使用,这是他的许多论点的核心,包括他对话语民主理想的批评的回应。以他关于愤怒言论和教条式群体认知的论点为例,我强调了这些系统性论点的一些推测性质,这些论点通常依赖于对系统如何运作的猜测,它的各个部分如何组合在一起,以及系统作为一个整体如何削弱其组成部分的看似有问题的特征。这限制了勒普特对我们这个分裂时代对民主言论持怀疑态度的回应的最终说服力。
{"title":"Sharing reasons and emotions in a non-ideal discursive system","authors":"Paul Billingham","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231167594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231167594","url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically evaluates two aspects of Maxime Lepoutre's important book, Democratic Speech in Divided Times. First, I examine Lepoutre's approach to the shared reasons constraint—the requirement to offer shared reasons within public deliberation—and the place of emotions in public discourse. I argue that he, and indeed all who adopt such a highly inclusivist approach, face a dilemma that pushes him either to apply the shared reasons constraint more widely than he desires or to abandon it completely. I chart a course through this dilemma, but one that involves significant revisions to Lepoutre's position, particularly regarding the need for idealization. Second, I consider Lepoutre's use of the systemic approach to public discourse, which is central to many of his arguments, including his responses to critics of the discursive democratic ideal. Using his arguments regarding angry speech and dogmatic group cognition as illustrative, I highlight the somewhat speculative nature of these systemic arguments, which often rely on conjectures about how the system might operate, how its parts fit together, and how the system as a whole might attenuate seemingly problematic features of its component parts. This limits the ultimate persuasiveness of Lepoutre's responses to skepticism about democratic speech in our divided times.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"21 1","pages":"294 - 314"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91164082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Nozick on the difference principle 诺齐克的差异原则
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231156931
Michael Gläser
Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia contains one of the earliest and best-known criticisms of John Rawls’s theory of justice in general and the difference principle in particular. The discussion of Nozick’s critique of Rawls in the literature has focused on his argument against “patterned” conceptions of justice, of which the difference principle as Nozick understands it constitutes merely one version among others. In this article I consider the objection Nozick raises against the difference principle specifically, namely that it unfairly favors the “worse endowed” over the “better endowed” members of society. I argue that Nozick’s charge of unfairness against the difference principle is ambiguous between two distinct interpretations of the difference principle and as such divides into two distinct objections, the pre-cooperative and the cooperative fairness objection. I then argue that neither of these two interpretations of the difference principle represents the actual, Rawlsian difference principle accurately and that, more fundamentally, Nozick lacks the concept of politics as the distinctive moral category implicitly at work in Rawls’s theory of justice. Not as much of Nozick’s charge of unfairness against the difference principle therefore remains on reflection as may have appeared at first sight.
罗伯特·诺齐克的《无政府状态、国家和乌托邦》包含了对约翰·罗尔斯的一般正义理论,特别是差别原则的最早和最著名的批评之一。文献中关于诺齐克对罗尔斯的批判的讨论集中在他反对“模式化”正义概念的论点上,诺齐克所理解的差异原则只是其中的一个版本。在本文中,我特别考虑了诺齐克对差异原则提出的反对意见,即它不公平地偏袒“较差”的社会成员而不是“较好”的社会成员。我认为诺齐克对差异原则的不公平的指控在差异原则的两种不同解释之间是模棱两可的,因此分为两种不同的反对意见,前合作公平反对意见和合作公平反对意见。然后我认为,这两种差异原则的解释都不能准确地代表罗尔斯的实际差异原则,更根本的是,诺齐克缺乏政治的概念,作为罗尔斯正义理论中隐含的独特道德范畴。因此,诺齐克对差异原则的不公平的指责,并没有像乍一看那样,留在反思中。
{"title":"Nozick on the difference principle","authors":"Michael Gläser","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231156931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231156931","url":null,"abstract":"Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia contains one of the earliest and best-known criticisms of John Rawls’s theory of justice in general and the difference principle in particular. The discussion of Nozick’s critique of Rawls in the literature has focused on his argument against “patterned” conceptions of justice, of which the difference principle as Nozick understands it constitutes merely one version among others. In this article I consider the objection Nozick raises against the difference principle specifically, namely that it unfairly favors the “worse endowed” over the “better endowed” members of society. I argue that Nozick’s charge of unfairness against the difference principle is ambiguous between two distinct interpretations of the difference principle and as such divides into two distinct objections, the pre-cooperative and the cooperative fairness objection. I then argue that neither of these two interpretations of the difference principle represents the actual, Rawlsian difference principle accurately and that, more fundamentally, Nozick lacks the concept of politics as the distinctive moral category implicitly at work in Rawls’s theory of justice. Not as much of Nozick’s charge of unfairness against the difference principle therefore remains on reflection as may have appeared at first sight.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"86 1","pages":"126 - 159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78222297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Philosophical foundations for worst-case arguments 最坏情况论证的哲学基础
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-03-22 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231158662
Lara Buchak
Certain ethical views hold that we should pay more attention, even exclusive attention, to the worst-case scenario. Prominent examples include Rawls's Difference Principle and the Precautionary Principle. These views can be anchored in formal principles of decision theory, in two different ways. On the one hand, they can rely on ambiguity-aversion: the idea that we cannot assign sharp probabilities to various scenarios, and that if we cannot assign sharp probabilities, we should decide pessimistically, as if the probabilities are unfavorable. On the other hand, they can rely on risk-avoidance: the idea that we should pay more attention to worse scenarios, even when we can assign sharp probabilities. I distinguish these two foundations. I also show how they can be modified to support versions of these views that pay more but not exclusive attention to worst-case scenarios. Finally, I argue that risk-avoidance provides a superior foundation than ambiguity-aversion for the Difference Principle and the Precautionary Principle; in particular, it correctly identifies which ethical facts should matter to those who champion these principles.
某些伦理观点认为,我们应该更多地关注,甚至只关注最坏的情况。突出的例子包括罗尔斯的差异原则和预防原则。这些观点可以以两种不同的方式扎根于决策理论的正式原则中。一方面,他们可以依赖于模糊性厌恶:即我们不能为各种情况分配明确的概率,如果我们不能分配明确的概率,我们就应该悲观地做出决定,就好像概率是不利的一样。另一方面,他们可以依赖于风险规避:即我们应该更多地关注更糟糕的情况,即使我们可以分配明显的概率。我区分这两种基础。我还展示了如何修改它们以支持这些视图的版本,这些视图更多地关注最坏情况,但不是只关注最坏情况。最后,笔者认为风险规避为差异原则和预防原则提供了比歧义规避更好的基础;特别是,它正确地指出了哪些道德事实对那些拥护这些原则的人来说是重要的。
{"title":"Philosophical foundations for worst-case arguments","authors":"Lara Buchak","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231158662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231158662","url":null,"abstract":"Certain ethical views hold that we should pay more attention, even exclusive attention, to the worst-case scenario. Prominent examples include Rawls's Difference Principle and the Precautionary Principle. These views can be anchored in formal principles of decision theory, in two different ways. On the one hand, they can rely on ambiguity-aversion: the idea that we cannot assign sharp probabilities to various scenarios, and that if we cannot assign sharp probabilities, we should decide pessimistically, as if the probabilities are unfavorable. On the other hand, they can rely on risk-avoidance: the idea that we should pay more attention to worse scenarios, even when we can assign sharp probabilities. I distinguish these two foundations. I also show how they can be modified to support versions of these views that pay more but not exclusive attention to worst-case scenarios. Finally, I argue that risk-avoidance provides a superior foundation than ambiguity-aversion for the Difference Principle and the Precautionary Principle; in particular, it correctly identifies which ethical facts should matter to those who champion these principles.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"18 1","pages":"215 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89657200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Towards an index of linguistic justice 走向语言公正的指标
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-03-17 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231158657
Michele Gazzola, Bengt-Arne Wickström, M. Fettes
As a step towards a systematic comparative evaluation of the fairness of different language policies, a rationale is presented for the design of an index of linguistic justice based on public policy analysis. The approach taken is to define a ‘minimum threshold of linguistic justice’ with respect to government language policy in three domains: law and order, public administration, and essential services. A hypothetical situation of pure equality and freedom in the choice of language used by all members of society in communicating with the state is used as a theoretical benchmark to study the distributive effects of policy alternatives. Departures from this standard incur lower scores. Indicators are chosen to assess effective access to three kinds of language rights: toleration (the lack of state interference in private language choices), accommodation (accessibility of public services in different languages), and compensation (symbolic and practical recognition of languages outside the dominant one). In order to take account of the cost-benefit trade-offs involved in providing language-related goods to language groups of varying sizes, a method is adopted for weighting scores with respect to compensation rights so that lack of recognition for larger groups incurs greater penalties, while factoring in the particular characteristics of each language-related good. A trial set of ten indicators illustrates the compromises entailed in balancing theoretical rigour with empirical feasibility.
作为对不同语言政策公平性进行系统比较评估的一步,本文提出了基于公共政策分析的语言公正指数设计的基本原理。所采取的方法是在法律和秩序、公共行政和基本服务这三个领域为政府的语言政策定义一个“语言公正的最低门槛”。假设所有社会成员在与国家沟通时使用的语言选择完全平等和自由,作为研究政策选择的分配效应的理论基准。偏离这个标准会导致较低的分数。选择指标来评估三种语言权利的有效获取:容忍(国家不干预私人语言选择)、便利(不同语言的公共服务的可及性)和补偿(对主导语言以外的语言的象征性和实际承认)。为了考虑到向不同规模的语言群体提供与语言有关的商品所涉及的成本效益权衡,采用了一种方法对补偿权利的得分进行加权,以便在考虑到每种与语言有关的商品的特点的同时,对较大的群体缺乏承认会招致更大的惩罚。一套包含十个指标的试验说明了平衡理论严谨性与经验可行性所需要的妥协。
{"title":"Towards an index of linguistic justice","authors":"Michele Gazzola, Bengt-Arne Wickström, M. Fettes","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231158657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231158657","url":null,"abstract":"As a step towards a systematic comparative evaluation of the fairness of different language policies, a rationale is presented for the design of an index of linguistic justice based on public policy analysis. The approach taken is to define a ‘minimum threshold of linguistic justice’ with respect to government language policy in three domains: law and order, public administration, and essential services. A hypothetical situation of pure equality and freedom in the choice of language used by all members of society in communicating with the state is used as a theoretical benchmark to study the distributive effects of policy alternatives. Departures from this standard incur lower scores. Indicators are chosen to assess effective access to three kinds of language rights: toleration (the lack of state interference in private language choices), accommodation (accessibility of public services in different languages), and compensation (symbolic and practical recognition of languages outside the dominant one). In order to take account of the cost-benefit trade-offs involved in providing language-related goods to language groups of varying sizes, a method is adopted for weighting scores with respect to compensation rights so that lack of recognition for larger groups incurs greater penalties, while factoring in the particular characteristics of each language-related good. A trial set of ten indicators illustrates the compromises entailed in balancing theoretical rigour with empirical feasibility.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"8 1","pages":"243 - 270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77103988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Climate obligations and social norms 气候义务和社会规范
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2023-02-22 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X231156930
Stephanie Collins
Many governments are failing to act sufficiently strongly on climate change. Given this, what should motivated affluent individuals in high-consumption societies do? This paper argues that social norms are a particularly valuable target for individual climate action. Within norm-promotion, the paper makes the case for a focus on anti-fossil fuel norms specifically. Section 1 outlines gaps in the existing literature on individuals’ climate change obligations. Section 2 characterises social norms. Section 3 provides seven reasons why social norms are a particularly worthy target for individual climate actors. Section 4 asks which social norms individuals should emphasise, arguing that anti-fossil fuel norms have advantages over emissions reduction and offsetting norms. Section 5 outlines the pathways and mechanisms individuals might exploit to promote anti-fossil fuel norms.
许多政府未能在气候变化问题上采取足够有力的行动。考虑到这一点,高消费社会中富有动机的个人应该怎么做?本文认为,社会规范是个人气候行动的一个特别有价值的目标。在促进规范方面,本文特别提出了关注反化石燃料规范的理由。第1节概述了现有文献中关于个人气候变化义务的空白。第二节描述了社会规范。第3节提供了社会规范是气候行为个体特别值得关注的目标的七个原因。第4节提出个人应该重视哪些社会规范,认为反化石燃料规范比减排和抵消规范更有优势。第5节概述了个人可能利用的促进反化石燃料规范的途径和机制。
{"title":"Climate obligations and social norms","authors":"Stephanie Collins","doi":"10.1177/1470594X231156930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231156930","url":null,"abstract":"Many governments are failing to act sufficiently strongly on climate change. Given this, what should motivated affluent individuals in high-consumption societies do? This paper argues that social norms are a particularly valuable target for individual climate action. Within norm-promotion, the paper makes the case for a focus on anti-fossil fuel norms specifically. Section 1 outlines gaps in the existing literature on individuals’ climate change obligations. Section 2 characterises social norms. Section 3 provides seven reasons why social norms are a particularly worthy target for individual climate actors. Section 4 asks which social norms individuals should emphasise, arguing that anti-fossil fuel norms have advantages over emissions reduction and offsetting norms. Section 5 outlines the pathways and mechanisms individuals might exploit to promote anti-fossil fuel norms.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"13 1","pages":"103 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88801707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
期刊
Politics Philosophy & Economics
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
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