Journal of Social Philosophy最新文献_第8页

Issue Information - NASSP PAGE 发行信息- NASSP页

IF 0.8 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-01-23 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12424

引用次数: 0

Contributors 贡献者

IF 0.8 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-01-23 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12423

引用次数: 0

Analyzing social wrongs 分析社会错误

IF 0.8 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-01-10 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12505

Hilkje C. Hänel, Sally Haslanger, Odin Kroeger

{"title":"Analyzing social wrongs","authors":"Hilkje C. Hänel, Sally Haslanger, Odin Kroeger","doi":"10.1111/josp.12505","DOIUrl":"10.1111/josp.12505","url":null,"abstract":"Academic philosophy has witnessed a significant change in the last years from nonideal investigations of social wrongs as being a rather marginal topic in comparison to what was assumed to be more fundamental questions to those very investigations drawing significant attention and taking their rightful place in the midst of the profession of philosophy. Yet, despite these advances and the increasing awareness of social wrongs in relation to—for example, gender, race, class, and disability—social philosophers are still regularly asked to justify what they are doing or to justify that what they are doing is rightfully called philosophy. This special issue is motivated by the following three ideas: First, to increase awareness for nonideal investigations into gender, race, class, and disability. Second, to draw attention to the insight that our philosophical methods and the topics we are concerned with are not two separate issues; in fact, what we investigate and how we do so are tightly connected. Third, to question the ways in which philosophy as a discipline excludes certain voices, topics, and methods.Many of the papers in this issue were the result of a conference marked by the attempt to bring investigations of social wrongs in the tradition of post-Analytic philosophy to the German-speaking philosophy world—a context still very much behind on investigations of social wrongs in a nonideal manner. This conference, which took place in Vienna, and which was organized in 2014 by Hilkje C. Hänel, Daniel James, and Odin Kroeger, served as an international forum for social philosophers to think about the way in which we do philosophy and the topics that are often strikingly absent from philosophy. Since then, much has changed, but the need to question what philosophy is, what it can do, and who is doing it remains. Before we provide a brief overview of the papers in this issue, let us say a bit more about the three aspects mentioned above.Discussions of gender, race, and disability have slowly paved their way into the midst of philosophical theorizing and have become an essential aspect of academia; this is evidenced by recent hires in feminist philosophy and critical race studies, the emergence of journals on the topics of gender, race, and most recently, disability, or the central place that these topics take in the APA newsletter, conferences, as well as book and article publications. (This is of course due to the resistant struggle of a few to make our profession better and more welcoming for marginalized and oppressed philosophers.) However, neither nonideal investigations of social wrongs in general nor debates on gender, race, and disability—and many other important sites of oppression and injustice—have a secure place within academic philosophy yet; as can be seen by recent backlashes against trans philosophy or the metaphysical debates that claim that gender and race (and likely disability) are not substantive debates within","PeriodicalId":46756,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josp.12505","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48860842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Justice for (and by) philosophers: Professional ethics and punishing our own 哲学家的正义:职业道德和惩罚我们自己

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-01-10 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12508

Timothy Weidel

引用次数: 0

The normative justification of obligatory integration policies 强制性一体化政策的规范性理由

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-01-05 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12506

Matthias Hoesch

{"title":"The normative justification of obligatory integration policies","authors":"Matthias Hoesch","doi":"10.1111/josp.12506","DOIUrl":"10.1111/josp.12506","url":null,"abstract":"Since the late 1990s a class of political measures that can be called “obligatory integration policies” has constantly gained importance in Europe (cf. Goodman, 2010; Goodman & Wright, 2015; Joppke, 2017; Michalowski & van Oers, 2012; Triadafilopoulos, 2011). These policies require immigrants to take certain actions or to demonstrate certain competences that, in the eyes of the host society, serve their integration.Some of these measures are aimed at integration in a general sense. The requirement in several European states to take up residence in a particular place (“residence condition”), for instance, is intended to “facilitate the integration [of immigrants]” (EuGH Press Release No. 22/16), without specifying what integration consists in. Typically, however, these measures focus on learning the host society's language as the key to integration. In particular, many Western states prescribe some groups of immigrants to attend language classes. Often, these measures additionally seek to promote “civic” integration, for example, when integration courses encompass, beside language lessons, units about the host society's values, politics, culture, and history.Obligatory integration policies are obligatory in the sense that they do not seek to promote attendance with incentives, but to compel it with sanctions or penalties. In case of incentives, immigrants are at liberty to respond to them or not. If, for example, the state subsidizes language courses so that the fee is very low or if the state pays grants to immigrants for successfully joining classes, many immigrants will decide to participate of their own free will. In case of obligatory integration policies, however, immigrants cannot choose whether or not they respond to an incentive; they simply have to comply with the legal obligation and any violation is deemed to be wrongdoing. In recent decades, there has been a shift in many European states from integration policies based on incentives toward obligatory integration policies. When, for instance, publicly subsidized integration courses were established in Germany in 2005, about a third of the participants in the courses were obliged to attend, whereas a majority chose voluntarily to embrace the opportunity to learn the language for a low price. The amendment of the legal rules underlying integration courses through the so-called Integrationsgesetz in 2016, lead to an increase in the share of the obligatory participants to two-thirds (193,000 persons in 2017).1From the point of view of normative theory, the distinction between obligatory integration policies and those merely involving incentives for voluntary compliance is of major importance. Obviously, there is nothing pro tanto unjust about states creating incentives for immigrants to integrate, as long as the incentives in question are reasonable in scope and ","PeriodicalId":46756,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josp.12506","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41834646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Indigenizing wild animal sovereignty. 使野生动物主权本土化

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-09 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12498

Dennis Papadopoulos

引用次数: 0

Political activism, egalitarian justice, and public reason 政治激进主义、平等正义和公共理性

IF 0.8 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-12-28 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12501

Blain Neufeld

引用次数: 0

Social pathologies of informational privacy 信息隐私的社会病态

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-12-21 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12504

Wulf Loh

{"title":"Social pathologies of informational privacy","authors":"Wulf Loh","doi":"10.1111/josp.12504","DOIUrl":"10.1111/josp.12504","url":null,"abstract":"Following the recent practice turn in privacy research, informational privacy is increasingly analyzed with regard to the “appropriate flow of information” within a given practice, which preserves the “contextual integrity” of that practice (Nissenbaum, 2010, p. 149; 2015). Such a practice-theoretical take on privacy emphasizes the normative structure of practices as well as its structural injustices and power asymmetries, rather than focusing on the intentions and moral considerations of individual or institutional actors. Since privacy norms are seen to be institutionalized via the role obligations of the practice's participants, this approach can analyze structural and systematic privacy infringements in terms of “defective role performances and defective social relations” (Roessler & Mokrosinska, 2013, p. 780).Unfortunately, it is still often somewhat unclear what this exactly means within the context of informational privacy, why these performances and relations are defective and for whom. This raises the common objection of a so-called “practice positivism” (Applbaum, 1999, p. 51), that is, the difficulty of practice–theoretical accounts to take a practice-independent standpoint, from which to normatively evaluate the existing practice norms themselves. For example, Nissenbaum herself initially argues for a “presumption in favor of the status quo” with respect to the appropriateness and flow of privacy norms within a practice (Nissenbaum, 2004, p. 127). Such a “practice conservatism” (Nissenbaum, 2010, p. 169) comes dangerously close to committing a naturalistic fallacy, if not undergirded by practice-external criteria (which is ultimately what she does).Merely resorting to existing practice norms to assess what defective role performances amount to, only shifts the question from how to recognize an appropriate flow of information to the question of how to recognize those defective role performances and social relations. Against this backdrop, the central aim of this article is to shed light on this question without resorting to practice-independent first principles or far-reaching universalistic anthropological assumptions. For this, I will analyze the notion of “defective role performances and social relations” in terms of social pathologies.1 Doing so has two advantages: First of all, it can draw on already existing concepts and distinctions, which help to categorize the different levels of analysis that exist in informational privacy research and situate the notion of “defective role performances” within them (Section 1). Second, those concepts and distinctions can serve as a basis for establishing a typology of phenomena with regard to deficient practices of informational privacy (Section 4).Having thus set the scene in Section 1, I can move on to address the notion of “defective role performances and social relations” w","PeriodicalId":46756,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josp.12504","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42251597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

You can't tell me what to do! Why should states comply with international institutions? 你无权对我指手画脚!各国为什么要遵守国际机构?

IF 0.8 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-12-18 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12503

Antoinette Scherz

引用次数: 2

Neither race nor ethnicity: Latinidad as a social affordance 既不是种族，也不是民族:拉丁裔是一种社会优势

IF 1.1 3区哲学

Journal of Social Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-12-16 DOI: 10.1111/josp.12500

Alejandro Arango, Adam Burgos

引用次数: 0