{"title":"Social Equality and the Stateless Society","authors":"Jessica Flanigan","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.2.133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.2.133","url":null,"abstract":"Social egalitarians are clear that the ideal of social equality applies both to private and public relationships—friendships and marriages as well as political and economic associations. Most social egalitarians support democratic procedures and institutions as a way of counteracting the subordinating nature of state power. On this view, social egalitarianism can be compatible with state power and social egalitarians needn’t be anarchists. In contrast, I argue that social egalitarians' tolerance of governments is misplaced and social egalitarians should be anarchists. Even when state power is wielded by elected officials, it is still subordinating to those who are subject to it. Just as social egalitarians would reject oppressive private relations, even if democratic, they should also reject the oppressive relations between private citizens and public officials.","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131057606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Democratic equality and Rawls's criticism of welfare state capitalism","authors":"Juan Antonio Fernández Manzano","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.2.213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.2.213","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the accusation of developing an abstract theory, detached from real conditions, depoliticizing, and ultimately inclined towards the status quo, Rawls did not fail to analyze, since 1971, the political-economic conditions in which his theory could become viable. The analysis of this topic concludes with the statement that the principles and ideals of his theory could not be satisfied under capitalism in any of its forms. \u0000This article discusses the possibilities of making justice as fairness compatible under a capitalist welfare state and shows that the reasons Rawls presented for denying this possibility remain perfectly valid. The difficulties of a welfare state to curb the tendencies of capitalism towards undemocratic inequality make it unviable. The article defends that, although it is a noble ideal to avoid that no one should fall below a certain social minimum, the requirements of the principles of justice are much more demanding. The article concludes by defending Rawls's methodology and main arguments and showing that far from having depoliticizing effects, justice as fairness allows us to broaden the political imagination both to denounce the high oligopolistic character of capitalist economies and to combat the omnipresent inclination of neoliberalism towards economic efficiency.","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117041409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Three Roles of Ideal Theory","authors":"Lars J. K. Moen","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.2.208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.2.208","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000Rawlsian ideal theory is meant to perform various roles in non-ideal theory. In this paper, I distinguish between three roles, and I consider the extent to which we can expect ideal theory to perform them. It is meant to serve as a target to guide non-ideal theorising in the long-term. It is also supposed to provide a way of comparing different injustices to tell us which is worst and therefore in most urgent need of a remedy. Finally, ideal theory is the basis for a model of fairness that restricts the set of morally permissible measures in non-ideal theory. I show how the first two roles—the target and urgency roles—are less plausible than the fairness role.\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125698491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Autonomy Skills in Liberal Dependency Care. On Asha Bhandary's Freedom to Care","authors":"E. A. Glantzi","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.1.215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.1.215","url":null,"abstract":"Care is an important aspect of our lives because some forms of it are crucial for our survival while others promote our well-being. With the exception of the work of some liberal feminist philosophers like Susan Moller Okin’s (1989) important book Justice, Gender and the Family, liberalism has failed to address the role of care in our daily lives, its value and its relation with justice (Bhandary, 2020, p. 2). Asha Bhandary’s book Freedom to Care: Liberalism, Dependency Care, and Culture aims at contributing to filling this gap by developing a “form of liberal social contract theory that incorporates dependency care into a liberal egalitarian understanding of justice” (ibidem). “Dependency care” is defined by Bhandary as the “intensive, hands –on care provided by another person” without which, the person in need of care will not survive (ibidem). Bhandary argues that the receipt of dependency care should be guided by principles of justice (pp. 89–92), as the latter are identified through “a modified version of the Rawlsian original position” (pp. 11).","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116891105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Defending Paine's Agrarian Justice and the \"Ground-Rent\"","authors":"Michael Weber","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.1.168","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.1.168","url":null,"abstract":"Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice deserves more attention than it has received, for in it Paine provides a foundational case for a broad social welfare program that is absent in his better-known Rights of Man. In this paper, I explain Paine’s case in Agrarian Justice, and consider the objection that the main revenue source Paine proposes – the “ground-rent” – is insufficient to fund the social welfare program he proposes because in the production of value the contribution attributable to natural resources is insignificant. I argue that the ground-rent justifies levying a tax not just on the value of the natural resources used in the production of value, but on a portion of the value of the labor applied to those resources, and therefore can be a significant revenue source. Similar considerations apply to resource-based taxation schemes suggested by others, including Henry George, Thomas Pogge, and some modern “left-libertarians”. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 ","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"163 2-3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123504063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Political Value of Social Association","authors":"J. Grand","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.1.170","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.1.170","url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on the paradigmatic category of social association to question the general treatment of freedom of association in theories of justice. Social associations are organised, voluntary, and secondary associations that do not have any particular economic or political function and are not related to any external authority. This category is deployed to re-examine the relationship between freedom of association and the two moral powers. I support the argument that freedom of social association is not only an institutional condition for conscience, as stated by Rawls, but also has an evident direct connection with both moral powers, because they enable individuals to lead a life that they collectively affirm to be reasonable and valuable and develop a sense of value and confidence in their own abilities. This is the fundamental associative interest we have in self-respect, which has been rendered philosophically invisible in political liberalism by the category of non-political association.","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126176750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Politics of Sweatshop Labour","authors":"Janelle Pötzsch","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.1.172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.1.172","url":null,"abstract":"This paper provides a political account of sweatshop labour by highlighting the role of political actors in establishing and sustaining exploitative working conditions in global sweatshops. In academic debates on sweatshop labor, the focus has been mostly on the responsibility of business or consumers (cf. Arnold and Bowie 2007, Meyers 2007, Zoller 2015), albeit there are some authors who deal with the role of trade unions and civil society (cf. Kabeer 2000). To provide a broader picture, I draw on the differentiation between extractive and inclusive institutions made by development economists Acemoglu and Robinson (2013) and apply this account to the sweatshop issue. I will argue that sweatshops are a political rather than an economic issue, and substantiate my claim by drawing on the Chinese household registration system hukou, and the political background conditions in Bangladesh.","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121351349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Socialism: Utilitarian and Deontic","authors":"Simon Skempton","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.1.179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.1.179","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that those who advocate the capitalist market system on the basis of the ‘invisible hand’ or ‘spontaneous order’ belong to a tradition in political philosophy which attempts to find ways to get the most out of a flawed human nature, whereas socialists tend to belong to the opposing tradition which maintains faith in human improvement. The former tradition involves a kind of consequentialism in which goodness can be achieved irrespective of people’s intentions, whereas the latter tradition, with its emphasis on conscious decision making and the ‘good will’, includes Kantian deontology. Both utilitarian and deontological arguments for socialism are discussed, but it is argued that the emphases on human dignity and on deliberate planned action make socialist arguments sit more comfortably with deontology. This is most clearly the case when socialist thinkers transform Kantian monological universality into dialogical and communicative mutuality.","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128074775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"What is the justifiable demos of a referendum on state secession?","authors":"Jouni Reinikainen","doi":"10.21814/eps.5.1.135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.5.1.135","url":null,"abstract":"The prevailing practice for enfranchisement in referendums on state secession only gives the inhabitants of the secessionist unit a vote, while all the inhabitants of a municipality often are enfranchised in referendums on urban secession. This paper examines the justifiably of holding on to the more exclusive practice at the state level from two principles for enfranchisement, the all-affected principle and the all-subjected principle, as well as from a theory of secession, the exit approach. The argument of the paper is that none of these two principles is able to justify this practice, but that it is justifiable on the exit approach. The latter is also the approach we should take according to this argument. The fundamental problem with a statewide vote on the secession of a part of a state is that it mistakenly would give people a say on other people’s exit.","PeriodicalId":109658,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132672243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
