Disenfranchisement and the Capacity/Equality Puzzle: Why Disenfranchise Children but Not Adults Living with Cognitive Disabilities

IF 0.9 Q3 ETHICS
Attila Mráz
{"title":"Disenfranchisement and the Capacity/Equality Puzzle: Why Disenfranchise Children but Not Adults Living with Cognitive Disabilities","authors":"Attila Mráz","doi":"10.1515/mopp-2019-0054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, I offer a solution to the Capacity/Equality Puzzle. The puzzle holds that an account of the franchise may adequately capture at most two of the following: (1) a political equality-based account of the franchise, (2) a capacity-based account of disenfranchising children, and (3) universal adult enfranchisement. To resolve the puzzle, I provide a complex liberal egalitarian justification of a moral requirement to disenfranchise children. I show that disenfranchising children is permitted by both the proper political liberal and the proper political egalitarian understandings of the relationship between cognitive capacity and the franchise. Further, I argue, disenfranchising children is required by a minimalistic, procedural principle of collective competence in political decision-making. At the same time, I show that political equality requires the enfranchisement of all adults, regardless of cognitive capacities, and that the collective competence principle does not ground adult disenfranchisement. This justifies the progressive legal trend that holds the capacity-based disenfranchisement of adults to be incompatible with liberal democratic principles.","PeriodicalId":37108,"journal":{"name":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","volume":"143 1","pages":"255 - 279"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Moral Philosophy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2019-0054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Abstract In this paper, I offer a solution to the Capacity/Equality Puzzle. The puzzle holds that an account of the franchise may adequately capture at most two of the following: (1) a political equality-based account of the franchise, (2) a capacity-based account of disenfranchising children, and (3) universal adult enfranchisement. To resolve the puzzle, I provide a complex liberal egalitarian justification of a moral requirement to disenfranchise children. I show that disenfranchising children is permitted by both the proper political liberal and the proper political egalitarian understandings of the relationship between cognitive capacity and the franchise. Further, I argue, disenfranchising children is required by a minimalistic, procedural principle of collective competence in political decision-making. At the same time, I show that political equality requires the enfranchisement of all adults, regardless of cognitive capacities, and that the collective competence principle does not ground adult disenfranchisement. This justifies the progressive legal trend that holds the capacity-based disenfranchisement of adults to be incompatible with liberal democratic principles.
剥夺公民权和能力/平等难题:为什么剥夺儿童而不是患有认知障碍的成年人的公民权
在本文中,我提出了一个解决容量/平等难题的方法。这个谜题认为,对选举权的描述最多可以充分抓住以下两点:(1)基于政治平等的对选举权的描述,(2)基于能力的对被剥夺选举权的儿童的描述,以及(3)普遍的成人选举权。为了解开这个谜题,我提供了一个复杂的自由平等主义理由,来解释剥夺儿童公民权的道德要求。我表明剥夺儿童的公民权是被正确的政治自由主义者和正确的政治平等主义者对认知能力和公民权之间关系的理解所允许的。此外,我认为,剥夺儿童的公民权是政治决策集体能力的最小化程序原则所要求的。与此同时,我表明,政治平等需要所有成年人的权利,而不管他们的认知能力如何,集体能力原则并不是剥夺成年人权利的基础。这证明了进步的法律趋势是合理的,这种趋势认为,以能力为基础剥夺成年人的公民权与自由民主原则是不相容的。
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
Moral Philosophy and Politics
Moral Philosophy and Politics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
×
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