工作的规范性:洛克与马克思主义关于公正工作的重叠共识

IF 0.5 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Journal of Human Values Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1177/0971685820941996
Chi Kwok
{"title":"工作的规范性:洛克与马克思主义关于公正工作的重叠共识","authors":"Chi Kwok","doi":"10.1177/0971685820941996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Work is an integral part of modern society. However, the question of the normative conditions that distinguish just from unjust work has been under-investigated in political theory. This article, by comparing the Lockean and Marxist views of just work, aims to show that a set of overlapping normative requirements of just work can be derived from them despite their polarized economic and political views. Locke has been appropriated by contemporary libertarians as the central figure of right-based libertarian market economy while Marx has been seen by the left as a central intellectual resource to criticize capitalism’s tendency for degrading work. Given this usual polarization, the article can shed light on a common set of normative requirements concerning just work between them. This overlapping set of normative requirements of just work invites reflections on possible common grounds of just work between the contemporary right and the left who have appropriated the two thinkers as their foundational theoretical building blocks.","PeriodicalId":44074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Values","volume":"26 1","pages":"228 - 237"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0971685820941996","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Normativity of Work: Lockean and Marxist Overlapping Consensus on Just Work\",\"authors\":\"Chi Kwok\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0971685820941996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Work is an integral part of modern society. However, the question of the normative conditions that distinguish just from unjust work has been under-investigated in political theory. This article, by comparing the Lockean and Marxist views of just work, aims to show that a set of overlapping normative requirements of just work can be derived from them despite their polarized economic and political views. Locke has been appropriated by contemporary libertarians as the central figure of right-based libertarian market economy while Marx has been seen by the left as a central intellectual resource to criticize capitalism’s tendency for degrading work. Given this usual polarization, the article can shed light on a common set of normative requirements concerning just work between them. This overlapping set of normative requirements of just work invites reflections on possible common grounds of just work between the contemporary right and the left who have appropriated the two thinkers as their foundational theoretical building blocks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Values\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"228 - 237\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0971685820941996\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Values\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685820941996\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685820941996","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

工作是现代社会不可分割的一部分。然而,在政治理论中,区分公正和不公正工作的规范条件问题一直没有得到充分的研究。本文通过比较洛克主义和马克思主义关于公正工作的观点,旨在表明尽管他们的经济和政治观点两极分化,但他们可以从中得出一套重叠的公正工作的规范要求。洛克被当代自由意志主义者视为以右翼为基础的自由意志主义市场经济的核心人物,而马克思则被左翼人士视为批评资本主义贬低工作倾向的核心知识资源。考虑到这种通常的两极分化,本文可以阐明一组关于它们之间工作的通用规范要求。这一套重叠的公正工作的规范要求引起了当代右翼和左翼之间对公正工作可能的共同基础的反思,他们把这两位思想家作为他们的基础理论基石。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Normativity of Work: Lockean and Marxist Overlapping Consensus on Just Work
Work is an integral part of modern society. However, the question of the normative conditions that distinguish just from unjust work has been under-investigated in political theory. This article, by comparing the Lockean and Marxist views of just work, aims to show that a set of overlapping normative requirements of just work can be derived from them despite their polarized economic and political views. Locke has been appropriated by contemporary libertarians as the central figure of right-based libertarian market economy while Marx has been seen by the left as a central intellectual resource to criticize capitalism’s tendency for degrading work. Given this usual polarization, the article can shed light on a common set of normative requirements concerning just work between them. This overlapping set of normative requirements of just work invites reflections on possible common grounds of just work between the contemporary right and the left who have appropriated the two thinkers as their foundational theoretical building blocks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Human Values
Journal of Human Values SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Journal of Human Values is a peer-reviewed tri-annual journal devoted to research on values. Communicating across manifold knowledge traditions and geographies, it presents cutting-edge scholarship on the study of values encompassing a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. Reading values broadly, the journal seeks to encourage and foster a meaningful conversation among scholars for whom values are no esoteric resources to be archived uncritically from the past. Moving beyond cultural boundaries, the Journal looks at values as something that animates the contemporary in its myriad manifestations: politics and public affairs, business and corporations, global institutions and local organisations, and the personal and the private.
期刊最新文献
Attaining Sustainability via Shrimad Bhagavad Gita: An Empirical Study of Identified Variables, Self-Efficacy, Goal Performance and Leadership Effectiveness Book review: Plato, The Republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett Which Golden Rule of Ethics? The Emotion in Early Buddhist Psychology of Human Values Transformative Learning with Wangari Maathai: Fostering Environmental Education and Sustainability Through the Green Picturebook Seeds of Change: Planting a Path to Peace
×
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