Public Interest

Eric R. Boot
{"title":"Public Interest","authors":"Eric R. Boot","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.2044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Appeals to the public interest in fields such as politics and law are commonplace. Government policies are criticized for contravening the public interest. A whistleblower’s violation of government secrecy laws may be deemed justified because their disclosures are in the public interest. Human rights violations may be considered justified if a particularly weighty public interest (national security, public health) is at stake. If biobanking promotes the public interest, its ambiguous relation to privacy may be deemed acceptable. The problem is that such appeals are made without clarifying what the public interest is and how it can be determined.\n Political philosophers are particularly well qualified to provide much-needed conceptual clarification and moral argument, yet during the past few decades they have largely ignored the issue. This is the consequence of a certain uneasiness with the concept of the public interest: It has been criticized for being empty, inimical to contemporary pluralistic societies, and a mere veil for the self-serving interests of the powerful. Proponents of the concept, however, respond that it is possible to provide a clear account of the public interest that meets (most of) these criticisms. The aggregative theory, for example, holds that the public interest corresponds simply to the sum of the private interests of those who make up the public. The procedural approach, instead, hopes to distill the public interest from a plethora of private interests through the process of either democratic competition or deliberation. Where these two accounts of the public interest derive the public interest from people’s private interests, the unitary account derives it instead from a comprehensive moral theory that applies equally to private and public interests. Finally, the civic account maintains that the public interest consists in interests we share in our capacity as citizens.\n Proponents of the concept of the public interest, moreover, argue that it can do normative work no other concept can. Though political philosophy has been dominated by the concept of justice for decades, not all political philosophical matters are reducible to questions of justice. Public interest is used to justify facilities, policies, and actions that are somehow beyond the purview of justice, such as public infrastructure, the disclosure of state secrets, the placing of limits on human rights, and much more.","PeriodicalId":203278,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.2044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Appeals to the public interest in fields such as politics and law are commonplace. Government policies are criticized for contravening the public interest. A whistleblower’s violation of government secrecy laws may be deemed justified because their disclosures are in the public interest. Human rights violations may be considered justified if a particularly weighty public interest (national security, public health) is at stake. If biobanking promotes the public interest, its ambiguous relation to privacy may be deemed acceptable. The problem is that such appeals are made without clarifying what the public interest is and how it can be determined. Political philosophers are particularly well qualified to provide much-needed conceptual clarification and moral argument, yet during the past few decades they have largely ignored the issue. This is the consequence of a certain uneasiness with the concept of the public interest: It has been criticized for being empty, inimical to contemporary pluralistic societies, and a mere veil for the self-serving interests of the powerful. Proponents of the concept, however, respond that it is possible to provide a clear account of the public interest that meets (most of) these criticisms. The aggregative theory, for example, holds that the public interest corresponds simply to the sum of the private interests of those who make up the public. The procedural approach, instead, hopes to distill the public interest from a plethora of private interests through the process of either democratic competition or deliberation. Where these two accounts of the public interest derive the public interest from people’s private interests, the unitary account derives it instead from a comprehensive moral theory that applies equally to private and public interests. Finally, the civic account maintains that the public interest consists in interests we share in our capacity as citizens. Proponents of the concept of the public interest, moreover, argue that it can do normative work no other concept can. Though political philosophy has been dominated by the concept of justice for decades, not all political philosophical matters are reducible to questions of justice. Public interest is used to justify facilities, policies, and actions that are somehow beyond the purview of justice, such as public infrastructure, the disclosure of state secrets, the placing of limits on human rights, and much more.
公共利益
在政治和法律等领域呼吁公众利益是司空见惯的事情。政府的政策因违反公共利益而受到批评。举报人违反政府保密法的行为可能被认为是正当的,因为他们的披露符合公共利益。如果特别重大的公共利益(国家安全、公共卫生)受到威胁,则可认为侵犯人权是正当的。如果生物银行促进公共利益,其与隐私的模糊关系可能被认为是可以接受的。问题是,这种呼吁没有澄清什么是公共利益以及如何确定公共利益。政治哲学家特别有资格提供急需的概念澄清和道德论证,但在过去的几十年里,他们在很大程度上忽略了这个问题。这是对公共利益概念的某种不安的结果:它被批评为空洞,对当代多元化社会有害,只是权贵自私利益的面纱。然而,这一概念的支持者回应说,有可能提供一个明确的公共利益解释,以满足(大多数)这些批评。例如,集合理论认为,公共利益仅仅对应于构成公共的那些人的私人利益的总和。相反,程序方法希望通过民主竞争或审议的过程,从过多的私人利益中提炼出公共利益。这两种关于公共利益的解释是从人们的私人利益中推导出公共利益的,而统一的解释则是从一种同样适用于私人利益和公共利益的综合道德理论中推导出公共利益的。最后,公民说认为,公共利益包括我们作为公民所共享的利益。此外,公共利益概念的支持者认为,它可以做其他概念无法做的规范性工作。虽然政治哲学几十年来一直被正义的概念所主导,但并不是所有的政治哲学问题都可以归结为正义的问题。公共利益被用来证明某种程度上超出司法范围的设施、政策和行动是合理的,比如公共基础设施、披露国家机密、限制人权等等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信