全球权利本地化还是地方权利普遍化?

Q2 Arts and Humanities Analyse und Kritik Pub Date : 2018-11-03 DOI:10.1515/AUK-2018-0017

H. Kliemt

{"title":"全球权利本地化还是地方权利普遍化?","authors":"H. Kliemt","doi":"10.1515/AUK-2018-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A universalist conception of immigration, assuming that all humans have a fundamental ethical right to equal consideration (Brücker), is contrasted with a particularist ethical conception that restricts equal consideration to members of a given community (Osterloh/Frey). It is argued that within the limits of Robbinsian economics only a communitarian conception is acceptable while an ethical theorist might lean towards a universalist view.","PeriodicalId":35240,"journal":{"name":"Analyse und Kritik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Universal Rights Localized or Local Rights Universalized?\",\"authors\":\"H. Kliemt\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/AUK-2018-0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract A universalist conception of immigration, assuming that all humans have a fundamental ethical right to equal consideration (Brücker), is contrasted with a particularist ethical conception that restricts equal consideration to members of a given community (Osterloh/Frey). It is argued that within the limits of Robbinsian economics only a communitarian conception is acceptable while an ethical theorist might lean towards a universalist view.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analyse und Kritik\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analyse und Kritik\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/AUK-2018-0017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyse und Kritik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/AUK-2018-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

普遍主义的移民观假定所有人都有平等考虑的基本伦理权利(br克尔)，与特殊主义的移民观形成对比，后者将平等考虑限制在特定社区的成员(奥斯特洛/弗雷)。有人认为，在罗宾斯经济学的范围内，只有社群主义的概念是可以接受的，而伦理理论家可能倾向于普遍主义的观点。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Universal Rights Localized or Local Rights Universalized?

Abstract A universalist conception of immigration, assuming that all humans have a fundamental ethical right to equal consideration (Brücker), is contrasted with a particularist ethical conception that restricts equal consideration to members of a given community (Osterloh/Frey). It is argued that within the limits of Robbinsian economics only a communitarian conception is acceptable while an ethical theorist might lean towards a universalist view.

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