Against the Received View

Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa
{"title":"Against the Received View","authors":"Thomas J. Donahue-Ochoa","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 examines the view that prevails among the world’s liberal elites on the book’s questions. Specifically, it examines this received view’s theories of the nature of systematic injustice, whether there are global systematic injustices, and the duty to challenge injustice. The received view argues that oppression or systematic injustice is mainly a form of political subjugation of a group, done chiefly by the state. It argues that there are no global systematic injustices, because a systematic injustice can implicate only those people over whom some agency claims political authority, and no agency claims political authority over the whole globe. And it argues that when groups have duties to challenge injustice, this does not imply that their individual members do, and vice versa. As a result, the view has nothing to say about when individuals should join in solidarity against injustice. Ironically, the view thereby sets groups free: rather than Leviathans composed of atomistic individuals jealous of their liberties, groups become Gullivers released from the Lilliputians’ bonds. The chapter then argues that this results in dangerously unchecked groups and a shortfall of responsible agents.","PeriodicalId":221809,"journal":{"name":"Unfreedom for All","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Unfreedom for All","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190051686.003.0003","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

Chapter 2 examines the view that prevails among the world’s liberal elites on the book’s questions. Specifically, it examines this received view’s theories of the nature of systematic injustice, whether there are global systematic injustices, and the duty to challenge injustice. The received view argues that oppression or systematic injustice is mainly a form of political subjugation of a group, done chiefly by the state. It argues that there are no global systematic injustices, because a systematic injustice can implicate only those people over whom some agency claims political authority, and no agency claims political authority over the whole globe. And it argues that when groups have duties to challenge injustice, this does not imply that their individual members do, and vice versa. As a result, the view has nothing to say about when individuals should join in solidarity against injustice. Ironically, the view thereby sets groups free: rather than Leviathans composed of atomistic individuals jealous of their liberties, groups become Gullivers released from the Lilliputians’ bonds. The chapter then argues that this results in dangerously unchecked groups and a shortfall of responsible agents.
针对接收视图
第二章考察了世界自由派精英对本书问题的普遍看法。具体来说,它考察了这一公认观点的理论,即系统性不公正的本质,是否存在全球系统性不公正,以及挑战不公正的责任。公认的观点认为,压迫或系统的不公正主要是对一个群体的一种政治征服,主要是由国家完成的。它认为不存在全球性的系统性的不公正,因为系统性的不公正只涉及那些被某些机构声称拥有政治权威的人,而没有任何机构声称拥有对全球的政治权威。它认为,当群体有责任挑战不公正时,这并不意味着他们的个人成员也有责任,反之亦然。因此,对于个人何时应该团结起来反对不公正,这种观点没有任何说法。具有讽刺意味的是,这种观点使群体获得了自由:而不是由嫉妒自由的原子个体组成的利维坦,群体变成了从利力普特人的束缚中释放出来的格列佛。这一章接着指出,这导致了危险的不受约束的群体和负责任的代理人的短缺。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信