首页 > 最新文献

Politics Philosophy & Economics最新文献

英文 中文
Political testimony 政治的证词
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-09-26 DOI: 10.1177/1470594x18798062
Han van Wietmarschen
I argue that reliance on political testimony conflicts with two democratic values: the value of mutual justifiability and the value of equality of opportunity for political influence. Reliance on political testimony is characterized by a reliance on the assertions of others directly on a political question the citizen is asked to answer as part of a formal democratic decision procedure. Reliance on expert testimony generally, even in the context of political decision-making, does not similarly conflict with democratic values. As a consequence of the argument, citizens have a pro tanto reason to rely on their own political judgment when determining their vote, and democratic societies have a reason to only ask citizens questions they are able to answer without reliance on political testimony.
我认为,依赖政治证词与两种民主价值观相冲突:相互辩护的价值和政治影响机会平等的价值。依赖政治证词的特点是直接依赖他人对公民被要求回答的政治问题的断言,这是正式民主决策程序的一部分。一般来说,即使在政治决策的背景下,对专家证词的依赖也不会与民主价值观相冲突。这种论证的结果是,公民在决定投票时有理由依靠自己的政治判断,而民主社会有理由只向公民提出他们能够在不依赖政治证词的情况下回答的问题。
{"title":"Political testimony","authors":"Han van Wietmarschen","doi":"10.1177/1470594x18798062","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x18798062","url":null,"abstract":"I argue that reliance on political testimony conflicts with two democratic values: the value of mutual justifiability and the value of equality of opportunity for political influence. Reliance on political testimony is characterized by a reliance on the assertions of others directly on a political question the citizen is asked to answer as part of a formal democratic decision procedure. Reliance on expert testimony generally, even in the context of political decision-making, does not similarly conflict with democratic values. As a consequence of the argument, citizens have a pro tanto reason to rely on their own political judgment when determining their vote, and democratic societies have a reason to only ask citizens questions they are able to answer without reliance on political testimony.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"45 1","pages":"23 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86826318","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: 2
Do territorial rights include the right to exclude? 领土权利包括排他权吗?
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-08-01 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X18788345
Cara Nine
Do territorial rights include the right to exclude? This claim is often assumed to be true in territorial rights theory. And if this claim is justified, a state may have a prima facie right to unilaterally exclude aliens from state territory. But is this claim justifiable? I examine the version of territorial rights that has the most compelling story to support the right to exclude: territorial rights as a kind of property right, where ‘territory’ refers to the public and common spaces included in the domain of state jurisdiction. I analyse the work of A. J. Simmons, who develops the political theory of John Locke into one of the most well-articulated and defended theories of territorial rights as a kind of property right. My main argument is that Simmons’ justification for rights of exclusion, which are derived from individual rights of self-government, does not apply to many kinds of public spaces. An upshot of this analysis is that most Lockean-based theories of territorial rights will have a hard time justifying the right to exclude as a prima facie right held by states against aliens.
领土权利包括排他权吗?这一主张在领土权利理论中通常被认为是正确的。如果这种主张是合理的,一个州可能有单方面将外国人排除在其领土之外的初步权利。但这种说法站得住脚吗?我考察了地域权利的版本,它有最令人信服的故事来支持排他权:地域权利作为一种财产权,其中“领土”指的是包括在国家管辖范围内的公共和公共空间。我分析了a·j·西蒙斯的著作,他将约翰·洛克的政治理论发展为最清晰有力的理论之一,将领土权利作为一种财产权。我的主要论点是,西蒙斯对排他权的论证来源于个人的自治权利,但并不适用于许多类型的公共空间。这种分析的结果是,大多数以洛克为基础的领土权利理论将很难证明排他权是国家对外国人持有的一种表面上的权利。
{"title":"Do territorial rights include the right to exclude?","authors":"Cara Nine","doi":"10.1177/1470594X18788345","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X18788345","url":null,"abstract":"Do territorial rights include the right to exclude? This claim is often assumed to be true in territorial rights theory. And if this claim is justified, a state may have a prima facie right to unilaterally exclude aliens from state territory. But is this claim justifiable? I examine the version of territorial rights that has the most compelling story to support the right to exclude: territorial rights as a kind of property right, where ‘territory’ refers to the public and common spaces included in the domain of state jurisdiction. I analyse the work of A. J. Simmons, who develops the political theory of John Locke into one of the most well-articulated and defended theories of territorial rights as a kind of property right. My main argument is that Simmons’ justification for rights of exclusion, which are derived from individual rights of self-government, does not apply to many kinds of public spaces. An upshot of this analysis is that most Lockean-based theories of territorial rights will have a hard time justifying the right to exclude as a prima facie right held by states against aliens.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"142 1","pages":"307 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78482481","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: 6
Territorial boundaries and history 领土边界和历史
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-06-19 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X18779308
A. Stilz
This article evaluates the theory of boundary legitimacy put forward in A. J. Simmons’ recent book Boundaries of Authority. I believe Simmons is correct to hold that questions about the legitimacy of political boundaries are distinct from questions about the justice of political institutions. But I argue that Simmons’ own theory makes legitimate boundaries depend far too strongly on historical processes in the past, with implausible implications. I conclude with some thoughts about how a broadly Kantian theory might take on board the most important insights of Simmons’ work.
本文对a·j·西蒙斯的新作《权威的边界》中提出的边界合法性理论进行了评价。我相信西蒙斯是正确的,他认为政治边界的合法性问题与政治制度的正义问题是不同的。但我认为,西蒙斯自己的理论认为,合理的边界过于依赖于过去的历史进程,具有令人难以置信的含义。最后,我提出了一些想法,关于一个广义的康德理论如何能够吸收西蒙斯作品中最重要的见解。
{"title":"Territorial boundaries and history","authors":"A. Stilz","doi":"10.1177/1470594X18779308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X18779308","url":null,"abstract":"This article evaluates the theory of boundary legitimacy put forward in A. J. Simmons’ recent book Boundaries of Authority. I believe Simmons is correct to hold that questions about the legitimacy of political boundaries are distinct from questions about the justice of political institutions. But I argue that Simmons’ own theory makes legitimate boundaries depend far too strongly on historical processes in the past, with implausible implications. I conclude with some thoughts about how a broadly Kantian theory might take on board the most important insights of Simmons’ work.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"12 1","pages":"374 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78803497","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: 3
Deliberative democracy and the problem of tacit knowledge 协商民主与隐性知识问题
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-06-15 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X18782086
Jonathan Benson
This article defends deliberative democracy against the problem of tacit knowledge. It has been argued that deliberative democracy gives a privileged position to linguistic communication and therefore excludes tacit forms of knowledge which cannot be expressed propositionally. This article shows how the exclusion of such knowledge presents important challenges to both proceduralist and epistemic conceptions of deliberative democracy, and how it has been taken by some to favour markets over democratic institutions. After pointing to the limitations of market alternatives, deliberative democracy is defended by arguing that tacit knowledge can be brought into deliberation through the mechanism of trust in testimony. By trusting the testimony of a speaker, deliberators are able to act on knowledge even without it being explicitly expressed. The article then goes on to discuss the implications of this defence for deliberative theory, and particularly, the forms of reason which deliberative democrats must see as legitimate.
本文为协商民主辩护,反对隐性知识的问题。有人认为,协商民主赋予语言交流以特权地位,因此排除了不能以命题方式表达的隐性知识形式。这篇文章展示了排除这些知识如何对协商民主的程序主义和认识论概念提出重要挑战,以及它如何被一些人用来支持市场而不是民主制度。在指出了市场选择的局限性之后,协商民主被认为可以通过证词信任机制将隐性知识引入审议。通过信任演讲者的证词,即使没有明确表达,审议者也能够根据知识采取行动。然后,文章继续讨论这种对协商理论的辩护的含义,特别是协商民主派必须视为合法的理性形式。
{"title":"Deliberative democracy and the problem of tacit knowledge","authors":"Jonathan Benson","doi":"10.1177/1470594X18782086","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X18782086","url":null,"abstract":"This article defends deliberative democracy against the problem of tacit knowledge. It has been argued that deliberative democracy gives a privileged position to linguistic communication and therefore excludes tacit forms of knowledge which cannot be expressed propositionally. This article shows how the exclusion of such knowledge presents important challenges to both proceduralist and epistemic conceptions of deliberative democracy, and how it has been taken by some to favour markets over democratic institutions. After pointing to the limitations of market alternatives, deliberative democracy is defended by arguing that tacit knowledge can be brought into deliberation through the mechanism of trust in testimony. By trusting the testimony of a speaker, deliberators are able to act on knowledge even without it being explicitly expressed. The article then goes on to discuss the implications of this defence for deliberative theory, and particularly, the forms of reason which deliberative democrats must see as legitimate.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"13 s1","pages":"76 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1470594X18782086","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72390293","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: 8
Public cartels, private conscience 公共卡特尔,私人良心
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-05-30 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X18779146
M. Cholbi
Many contributors to debates about professional conscience assume a basic, pre-professional right of conscientious refusal and proceed to address how to ‘balance’ this right against other goods. Here I argue that opponents of a right of conscientious refusal concede too much in assuming such a right, overlooking that the professions in which conscientious refusal is invoked nearly always operate as public cartels, enjoying various economic benefits, including protection from competition, made possible by governments exercising powers of coercion, regulation, and taxation. To acknowledge a right of conscientious refusal is to license professionals to disrespect the profession’s clients, in opposition to liberal ideals of neutrality, and to engage in moral paternalism toward them; to permit them to violate duties of reciprocity they incur by virtue of being members of public cartels; and to compel those clients to provide material support for conceptions of the good they themselves reject. However, so long as (a) a public cartel discharges its obligations to distribute the socially important goods they have are uniquely authorized to provide without undue burden to its clientele, and (b) conscientious refusal has the assent of other members of a profession, individual professionals’ claims of conscience can be accommodated.
许多参与关于职业良心辩论的人认为,良心拒绝是一种基本的、职业前的权利,并着手解决如何在这一权利与其他商品之间“平衡”。在这里,我认为反对良心拒绝权的人在假设这种权利时做出了太多让步,他们忽视了援引良心拒绝权的职业几乎总是作为公共卡特尔运作,享受各种经济利益,包括免受竞争的保护,这是由政府行使强制、监管和税收的权力所实现的。承认有良心拒绝的权利就是允许专业人士不尊重该行业的客户,这与自由主义的中立理想背道而驰,并对他们采取道德上的家长式作风;允许他们违反他们作为公共卡特尔成员而承担的互惠义务;并迫使这些客户为他们自己拒绝的善的概念提供物质支持。然而,只要(a)公共卡特尔履行其分配社会重要商品的义务,他们有唯一的授权,可以在不给客户带来不当负担的情况下提供商品,并且(b)良心拒绝得到其他专业人员的同意,个别专业人员的良心要求就可以得到满足。
{"title":"Public cartels, private conscience","authors":"M. Cholbi","doi":"10.1177/1470594X18779146","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X18779146","url":null,"abstract":"Many contributors to debates about professional conscience assume a basic, pre-professional right of conscientious refusal and proceed to address how to ‘balance’ this right against other goods. Here I argue that opponents of a right of conscientious refusal concede too much in assuming such a right, overlooking that the professions in which conscientious refusal is invoked nearly always operate as public cartels, enjoying various economic benefits, including protection from competition, made possible by governments exercising powers of coercion, regulation, and taxation. To acknowledge a right of conscientious refusal is to license professionals to disrespect the profession’s clients, in opposition to liberal ideals of neutrality, and to engage in moral paternalism toward them; to permit them to violate duties of reciprocity they incur by virtue of being members of public cartels; and to compel those clients to provide material support for conceptions of the good they themselves reject. However, so long as (a) a public cartel discharges its obligations to distribute the socially important goods they have are uniquely authorized to provide without undue burden to its clientele, and (b) conscientious refusal has the assent of other members of a profession, individual professionals’ claims of conscience can be accommodated.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"15 1","pages":"356 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80243746","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: 2
Lockeans versus nationalists on territorial rights 洛克主义者和民族主义者在领土权利上的对立
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-05-30 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X18779147
David Miller
This article examines A. J. Simmons’ Lockean theory of territorial rights and defends the superiority of the rival nationalist theory that he rejects. It begins by arguing that all philosophical accounts of territory need to be supplemented by nonideal theory to address real-world territorial conflicts. Turning to the Lockean theory, it points out that if territorial rights are to emerge from individual property rights in land, such rights must be robust. But on Simmons’ account, individuals only have natural property rights in material things involved in their ongoing purposive activities. Thus, a state founded on such rights would be vulnerable to having neglected parts of its territory expropriated by outsiders. It might also have to downsize in response to population increases elsewhere. Nationalist theories base territorial rights on the collective occupation and transformation of land by groups with shared identities. Three charges against such theories are rebutted: (1) The idea of cohesive national cultures is a myth, in the face of internal cultural diversity. (2) Despite their appeal to history, nationalist theories privilege current possessors of land at the expense of the dispossessed. (3) Such theories cannot solve the problem of ‘trapped minorities’ who don’t share the national identity of the majority.
本文考察了A. J.西蒙斯的洛克式领土权利理论,并为他所反对的对立民族主义理论的优越性进行了辩护。它首先提出,所有关于领土的哲学解释都需要用非理想理论来补充,以解决现实世界的领土冲突。转向洛克的理论,它指出,如果领土权利是从土地的个人财产权中产生的,那么这种权利必须是健全的。但在西蒙斯看来,个人只对其持续进行的有目的活动所涉及的物质事物拥有自然产权。因此,一个建立在这些权利基础上的国家很容易被外来者侵占其被忽视的部分领土。它也可能不得不缩小规模,以应对其他地方的人口增长。民族主义理论将领土权利建立在具有共同身份的群体对土地的集体占领和改造之上。本文驳斥了对这种理论的三种指责:(1)民族文化凝聚力的观点是一个神话,面对内部的文化多样性。尽管民族主义理论诉诸于历史,但它们以牺牲被剥夺者的利益为代价,使当前的土地所有者享有特权。(3)这些理论不能解决“被困的少数民族”的问题,他们不认同多数人的民族认同。
{"title":"Lockeans versus nationalists on territorial rights","authors":"David Miller","doi":"10.1177/1470594X18779147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X18779147","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines A. J. Simmons’ Lockean theory of territorial rights and defends the superiority of the rival nationalist theory that he rejects. It begins by arguing that all philosophical accounts of territory need to be supplemented by nonideal theory to address real-world territorial conflicts. Turning to the Lockean theory, it points out that if territorial rights are to emerge from individual property rights in land, such rights must be robust. But on Simmons’ account, individuals only have natural property rights in material things involved in their ongoing purposive activities. Thus, a state founded on such rights would be vulnerable to having neglected parts of its territory expropriated by outsiders. It might also have to downsize in response to population increases elsewhere. Nationalist theories base territorial rights on the collective occupation and transformation of land by groups with shared identities. Three charges against such theories are rebutted: (1) The idea of cohesive national cultures is a myth, in the face of internal cultural diversity. (2) Despite their appeal to history, nationalist theories privilege current possessors of land at the expense of the dispossessed. (3) Such theories cannot solve the problem of ‘trapped minorities’ who don’t share the national identity of the majority.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"98 1","pages":"323 - 335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88216487","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
Introduction to symposium on contemporary moral and political philosophy 当代道德与政治哲学研讨会导言
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-05-01 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X18774624
T. Christiano
{"title":"Introduction to symposium on contemporary moral and political philosophy","authors":"T. Christiano","doi":"10.1177/1470594X18774624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X18774624","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"362 1","pages":"117 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80263429","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
Prioritarianism: A response to critics 优先主义:对批评的回应
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-04-02 DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3154777
M. Adler, N. Holtug
Prioritarianism is a moral view that ranks outcomes according to the sum of a strictly increasing and strictly concave transformation of individual well-being. Prioritarianism is ‘welfarist’ (namely, it satisfies axioms of Pareto Indifference, Strong Pareto, and Anonymity) as well as satisfying three further axioms: Pigou–Dalton (formalizing the property of giving greater weight to those who are worse off), Separability, and Continuity. Philosophical discussion of prioritarianism was galvanized by Derek Parfit’s 1991 Lindley Lecture. Since then, and notwithstanding Parfit’s support, a variety of criticisms of prioritarianism have been advanced: by utilitarians (such as John Broome and Hilary Greaves), egalitarians (such as Lara Buchak; Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve; Ingmar Persson; and Larry Temkin), and sufficientists (Roger Crisp). In previous work, we have each endorsed prioritarianism. This article sets forth a renewed defense, in the light of the accumulated criticisms. We clarify the concept of a prioritarian moral view (here addressing work by David McCarthy), discuss the application of prioritarianism under uncertainty (herein of ‘ex post’ and ‘ex ante’ prioritarianism), distinguish between person-affecting and impersonal justifications, and provide a person-affecting case for prioritarianism. We then describe the various challenges mounted against prioritarianism – utilitarian, egalitarian, and sufficientist – and seek to counter each of them.
优先主义是一种道德观点,它根据个人福祉的严格增长和严格下降的变化总和来对结果进行排序。优先主义是“福利主义”(即,它满足帕累托无差异公理,强帕累托公理和匿名公理),并满足三个进一步的公理:庇古-道尔顿公理(形式化给予那些处境较差的人更大的权重的性质),可分离性和连续性。关于优先主义的哲学讨论是由德里克·帕菲特1991年的林德利讲座激发的。从那以后,尽管有帕菲特的支持,对优先主义的各种批评仍然不断出现:功利主义者(如约翰·布鲁姆和希拉里·格里夫斯)、平等主义者(如劳拉·布加勒斯特;Michael Otsuka和Alex Voorhoeve;英格玛·佩尔森;和拉里·特姆金),以及充分主义者(罗杰·克里斯普)。在以前的工作中,我们都赞同优先主义。根据积累起来的批评,本文提出了新的辩护。我们澄清了优先主义道德观的概念(这里讨论了David McCarthy的工作),讨论了优先主义在不确定性下的应用(这里是“事后”优先主义和“事前”优先主义),区分了影响人的理由和客观的理由,并为优先主义提供了一个影响人的案例。然后,我们描述了针对优先主义的各种挑战——功利主义、平等主义和充分主义——并试图应对每一个挑战。
{"title":"Prioritarianism: A response to critics","authors":"M. Adler, N. Holtug","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3154777","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3154777","url":null,"abstract":"Prioritarianism is a moral view that ranks outcomes according to the sum of a strictly increasing and strictly concave transformation of individual well-being. Prioritarianism is ‘welfarist’ (namely, it satisfies axioms of Pareto Indifference, Strong Pareto, and Anonymity) as well as satisfying three further axioms: Pigou–Dalton (formalizing the property of giving greater weight to those who are worse off), Separability, and Continuity. Philosophical discussion of prioritarianism was galvanized by Derek Parfit’s 1991 Lindley Lecture. Since then, and notwithstanding Parfit’s support, a variety of criticisms of prioritarianism have been advanced: by utilitarians (such as John Broome and Hilary Greaves), egalitarians (such as Lara Buchak; Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve; Ingmar Persson; and Larry Temkin), and sufficientists (Roger Crisp). In previous work, we have each endorsed prioritarianism. This article sets forth a renewed defense, in the light of the accumulated criticisms. We clarify the concept of a prioritarian moral view (here addressing work by David McCarthy), discuss the application of prioritarianism under uncertainty (herein of ‘ex post’ and ‘ex ante’ prioritarianism), distinguish between person-affecting and impersonal justifications, and provide a person-affecting case for prioritarianism. We then describe the various challenges mounted against prioritarianism – utilitarian, egalitarian, and sufficientist – and seek to counter each of them.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"26 1","pages":"101 - 144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89756952","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: 19
Gentrification and occupancy rights 中产阶级化和占用权
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-04-02 DOI: 10.1177/1470594X18766818
J. Huber, Fabio Wolkenstein
What, if anything, is problematic about gentrification? This article addresses this question from the perspective of normative political theory. We argue that gentrification is problematic insofar as it involves a violation of city-dwellers’ occupancy rights. We distinguish these rights from other forms of territorial rights and discuss the different implications of the argument for urban governance. If we agree on the ultimate importance of being able to pursue one’s located life plans, the argument goes, we must also agree on limiting the impact of gentrification on peoples’ lives. Limiting gentrification’s impact, however, does not entail halting processes of gentrification once and for all.
中产阶级化有什么问题吗?本文从规范政治理论的角度来探讨这个问题。我们认为,中产阶级化是有问题的,因为它涉及侵犯城市居民的居住权。我们将这些权利与其他形式的领土权利区分开来,并讨论城市治理论证的不同含义。这种观点认为,如果我们同意能够追求个人定位的人生计划的终极重要性,那么我们也必须同意限制中产阶级化对人们生活的影响。然而,限制中产阶级化的影响并不意味着一劳永逸地停止中产阶级化的进程。
{"title":"Gentrification and occupancy rights","authors":"J. Huber, Fabio Wolkenstein","doi":"10.1177/1470594X18766818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X18766818","url":null,"abstract":"What, if anything, is problematic about gentrification? This article addresses this question from the perspective of normative political theory. We argue that gentrification is problematic insofar as it involves a violation of city-dwellers’ occupancy rights. We distinguish these rights from other forms of territorial rights and discuss the different implications of the argument for urban governance. If we agree on the ultimate importance of being able to pursue one’s located life plans, the argument goes, we must also agree on limiting the impact of gentrification on peoples’ lives. Limiting gentrification’s impact, however, does not entail halting processes of gentrification once and for all.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"17 1","pages":"378 - 397"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78563656","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: 13
Rage inside the machine: Defending the place of anger in democratic speech 机器内部的愤怒:捍卫愤怒在民主言论中的地位
IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Pub Date : 2018-03-29 DOI: 10.17863/CAM.23085
Maxime Lepoutre
According to an influential objection, which Martha Nussbaum has powerfully restated, expressing anger in democratic public discourse is counterproductive from the standpoint of justice. To resist ...
根据玛莎·努斯鲍姆(Martha Nussbaum)有力重申的一项有影响力的反对意见,从正义的角度来看,在民主的公共话语中表达愤怒会适得其反。抵抗……
{"title":"Rage inside the machine: Defending the place of anger in democratic speech","authors":"Maxime Lepoutre","doi":"10.17863/CAM.23085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.23085","url":null,"abstract":"According to an influential objection, which Martha Nussbaum has powerfully restated, expressing anger in democratic public discourse is counterproductive from the standpoint of justice. To resist ...","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"56 1","pages":"398-426"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78813651","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: 15
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