{"title":"UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE AND ENFORCED BENEFICENCE","authors":"C. Hanisch","doi":"10.21814/EPS.2.1.82","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/EPS.2.1.82","url":null,"abstract":"I examine Allen Buchanan’s arguments for enforced beneficence andexpress a number of worries concerning his attempt to justify coercive distributivepolicies that guarantee (basic) health care services for all citizens. The centralobjection questions whether, given Buchanan’s own stipulation of universallyinstantiatedattitudes of moral beneficence amongst all society members, hisarguments from, first, the coordination problem and, second, the assuranceproblem successfully establish a justification of enforced contribution. I defendalternative, non-coercive, responses to the aforementioned problems and show thata particular kind of institution (an “information service”) provides all citizens withthe sufficient and reliable epistemic resources so that they can effectively help thesick and needy. I notice that Buchanan’s difficulties with justifying coercion can beregarded as providing indirect support for the view that developing a justice-basedconception of moral health care rights remains, pace Buchanan, an important taskto be completed.","PeriodicalId":191510,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132771262","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":"COMPROMISE AND/OR INTEGRITY? SOME NORMATIVE REMARKS","authors":"B. Magni","doi":"10.21814/EPS.2.1.99","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/EPS.2.1.99","url":null,"abstract":"In a compromise parties make a strategic calculation that a sacrifice ofsome their commitments is the best tactic to advance their other values andinterests over their current positions. But if we try to figure a compromise as a wayto get to agreements that can minimize harm and promote mutual respect betweenindividuals, and could increase the level of cooperation between them, we canconsider a compromise shaped in that way as an agreement that can translate atits best some of the individual’s deliberative ideals, as fairness and mutual respect.This kind of compromise will be different from simple negotiation, and moredemanding to each one of the parties. It will require first and foremost a reciprocalrecognition of moral fairness. But can we ever compromise on matters of ethicalprinciple without compromising our integrity?","PeriodicalId":191510,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114183179","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":"WHY THE DELIBERATIVE IDEAL JUSTIFIES PUBLICITY – EVEN IF PUBLICITY MAY UNDERMINE DELIBERATION","authors":"John Pitseys","doi":"10.21814/EPS.2.1.93","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/EPS.2.1.93","url":null,"abstract":"This paper critical assesses those arguments in democratic theory whichdefend the role of secrecy in politics in epistemic terms, that is, by emphasizingsome of the negative effects that publicity in deliberation can have (namely:obscuring the informational process, favoring plebiscitory rhetorics, and replacingopen discussion with conformist behaviors and/or bargaining). Based upon theanalysis of the 2010-2011 Belgian Sixth State Reform, the paper argues that, evenif publicity can produce negative effects on deliberation, it cannot be proven thatthese effects are more severe than those produced by a closed-doors deliberation.Furthermore, it argues that an epistemic justification of closed-door deliberationcould not be accepted by a reasonable citizen: the justification of publicity does notrely on its epistemic positive effects, but on the fact that the assessment anddefinition of these cannot be left to the negotiating parties.","PeriodicalId":191510,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130315915","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":"Green Republicanism as a non-neutral and convivial politics","authors":"Jorge Pinto","doi":"10.21814/eps.3.1.116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.116","url":null,"abstract":"Green republicanism can be described as a subset of republican political theory that aims to promote human flourishing by ensuring a non-dominating and ecologically sustainable republic. It expands the republican idea of social interdependence with the natural world, and therefore requires promoting and protecting the autonomy within those interdependencies. As such, green republicanism will focus on moving away from the current situation of ecological unsustainability while protecting freedom as non-domination. In this article, I offer a green republican justification for non-neutrality while remaining non-perfectionist. Furthermore, I argue that participation and deliberation is essential in defining the concrete politics that should guide green republicanism. To do so I examine the idea of conviviality and argue that green republicanism is the political theory best placed to ensure the objective of conviviality: it allows individuals to confront their views and to cooperate, acknowledging the finitude of the planet’s natural resources.","PeriodicalId":191510,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Politics & Society","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116850869","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
