公平的重要性

IF 1.6 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Politics Philosophy & Economics Pub Date : 2019-05-21 DOI:10.1177/1470594X19851162
S. Bajaj
{"title":"公平的重要性","authors":"S. Bajaj","doi":"10.1177/1470594X19851162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many philosophers argue that individuals have duties to do their fair shares of the demands of achieving important common ends. But what happens when some individuals fail to do their fair shares? Are the remaining duty bearers required to take up the slack? The most prominent view, Fair Shares, holds that individuals are never required to take up the slack. But this view has counterintuitive implications; in many cases, it would show callous disregard not to take up the slack to help those in dire need. The central alternative, Slack-Taking, holds that considerations of fairness have no bearing in determining whether individuals are required to take up the slack. But this view fails to capture the practical importance of fairness in nonideal circumstances. I defend an alternative view, Weighing, according to which individuals properly weigh the value of fairness against the value of taking up the slack in determining whether they are all-things-considered required to take up the slack. While this view has been suggested before in the literature, I develop it by clarifying its structure and underlying rationale and defending it against important recent objections.","PeriodicalId":45971,"journal":{"name":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","volume":"25 1","pages":"386 - 402"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The weight of fairness\",\"authors\":\"S. Bajaj\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1470594X19851162\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many philosophers argue that individuals have duties to do their fair shares of the demands of achieving important common ends. But what happens when some individuals fail to do their fair shares? Are the remaining duty bearers required to take up the slack? The most prominent view, Fair Shares, holds that individuals are never required to take up the slack. But this view has counterintuitive implications; in many cases, it would show callous disregard not to take up the slack to help those in dire need. The central alternative, Slack-Taking, holds that considerations of fairness have no bearing in determining whether individuals are required to take up the slack. But this view fails to capture the practical importance of fairness in nonideal circumstances. I defend an alternative view, Weighing, according to which individuals properly weigh the value of fairness against the value of taking up the slack in determining whether they are all-things-considered required to take up the slack. While this view has been suggested before in the literature, I develop it by clarifying its structure and underlying rationale and defending it against important recent objections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45971,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics Philosophy & Economics\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"386 - 402\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics Philosophy & Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X19851162\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics Philosophy & Economics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X19851162","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多哲学家认为,个人有义务在实现重要的共同目标的要求中承担自己的公平份额。但如果有些人没有尽到自己的责任,会发生什么呢?是否要求其余的责任承担者承担责任?最突出的观点是公平份额(Fair Shares),该观点认为,个人从来没有被要求承担责任。但这种观点有反直觉的含义;在许多情况下,如果不抓紧时间去帮助那些急需帮助的人,就会表现出无情的漠视。另一种核心观点是“懈怠”(slack - taking),它认为,在决定个人是否需要采取懈怠时,对公平的考虑没有任何影响。但这种观点未能抓住公平在非理想情况下的实际重要性。我为另一种观点辩护,权衡,根据这种观点,个人在决定他们是否被认为是所有事情都需要承担责任时,适当地权衡公平的价值与承担责任的价值。虽然这一观点在以前的文献中已经提出过,但我通过澄清其结构和基本原理,并针对最近重要的反对意见进行辩护,从而发展了这一观点。
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
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 weight of fairness
Many philosophers argue that individuals have duties to do their fair shares of the demands of achieving important common ends. But what happens when some individuals fail to do their fair shares? Are the remaining duty bearers required to take up the slack? The most prominent view, Fair Shares, holds that individuals are never required to take up the slack. But this view has counterintuitive implications; in many cases, it would show callous disregard not to take up the slack to help those in dire need. The central alternative, Slack-Taking, holds that considerations of fairness have no bearing in determining whether individuals are required to take up the slack. But this view fails to capture the practical importance of fairness in nonideal circumstances. I defend an alternative view, Weighing, according to which individuals properly weigh the value of fairness against the value of taking up the slack in determining whether they are all-things-considered required to take up the slack. While this view has been suggested before in the literature, I develop it by clarifying its structure and underlying rationale and defending it against important recent objections.
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Politics, Philosophy & Economics aims to bring moral, economic and political theory to bear on the analysis, justification and criticism of political and economic institutions and public policies. The Editors are committed to publishing peer-reviewed papers of high quality using various methodologies from a wide variety of normative perspectives. They seek to provide a distinctive forum for discussions and debates among political scientists, philosophers, and economists on such matters as constitutional design, property rights, distributive justice, the welfare state, egalitarianism, the morals of the market, democratic socialism, population ethics, and the evolution of norms.
期刊最新文献
A Farewell Editorial Democratic speech in divided times: An introduction How to talk back: hate speech, misinformation, and the limits of salience Discursive optimism defended Lockdowns and the ethics of intergenerational compensation
×
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