{"title":"保护弱势语言","authors":"Alan Patten","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198841425.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores an important but understudied argument in favor of protections for vulnerable languages. The argument observes that speakers of such languages can face a collective action problem. The question is what interventions by the state to correct such a problem would be consistent with, or even required by, a broadly liberal and egalitarian conception of justice. The chapter identifies two principles that are relevant to answering this question: the unanimity principle, which places strict limits on interventions, and the principle of correction, which licenses a more extensive range of interventions on behalf of vulnerable languages. The principles are in tension with one another but derive from a common source in liberal egalitarian thought. Overall, the right approach is to forge a compromise between the two principles, thus allowing for some interventions on behalf of vulnerable languages to protect against collective action problems.","PeriodicalId":372492,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy Volume 5","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protecting Vulnerable Languages\",\"authors\":\"Alan Patten\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780198841425.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter explores an important but understudied argument in favor of protections for vulnerable languages. The argument observes that speakers of such languages can face a collective action problem. The question is what interventions by the state to correct such a problem would be consistent with, or even required by, a broadly liberal and egalitarian conception of justice. The chapter identifies two principles that are relevant to answering this question: the unanimity principle, which places strict limits on interventions, and the principle of correction, which licenses a more extensive range of interventions on behalf of vulnerable languages. The principles are in tension with one another but derive from a common source in liberal egalitarian thought. Overall, the right approach is to forge a compromise between the two principles, thus allowing for some interventions on behalf of vulnerable languages to protect against collective action problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":372492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy Volume 5\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy Volume 5\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198841425.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy Volume 5","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198841425.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter explores an important but understudied argument in favor of protections for vulnerable languages. The argument observes that speakers of such languages can face a collective action problem. The question is what interventions by the state to correct such a problem would be consistent with, or even required by, a broadly liberal and egalitarian conception of justice. The chapter identifies two principles that are relevant to answering this question: the unanimity principle, which places strict limits on interventions, and the principle of correction, which licenses a more extensive range of interventions on behalf of vulnerable languages. The principles are in tension with one another but derive from a common source in liberal egalitarian thought. Overall, the right approach is to forge a compromise between the two principles, thus allowing for some interventions on behalf of vulnerable languages to protect against collective action problems.