伦理消费主义、民主价值观与正义

IF 3.3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Brian Berkey
{"title":"伦理消费主义、民主价值观与正义","authors":"Brian Berkey","doi":"10.1111/PAPA.12191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": It is widely believed that just societies would be characterized by some combination of democratic political institutions and market-based economic institutions. Underlying the commitment to the combination of democracy and markets is the view that certain normatively significant outcomes in a society ought to be determined by democratic processes, while others ought to be determined by market processes. On this view, we have reason to object when market processes are employed in ways that circumvent democratic processes and affect outcomes that ought to be determined democratically. In this paper, I argue that Waheed Hussain’s recent account of the conditions that must be met in order for the use of market power in pursuit of social change to avoid conflict with democratic values is objectionably narrow, and offer an alternative account that avoids the problems that undermine his account without abandoning the requirement that democratic values be properly respected. The central feature of my account that makes this possible is a broader conception of democratic processes that includes public deliberation and debate aimed at shaping informal social norms and practices.","PeriodicalId":47999,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","volume":"49 1","pages":"237-274"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/PAPA.12191","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical Consumerism, Democratic Values, and Justice\",\"authors\":\"Brian Berkey\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/PAPA.12191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": It is widely believed that just societies would be characterized by some combination of democratic political institutions and market-based economic institutions. Underlying the commitment to the combination of democracy and markets is the view that certain normatively significant outcomes in a society ought to be determined by democratic processes, while others ought to be determined by market processes. On this view, we have reason to object when market processes are employed in ways that circumvent democratic processes and affect outcomes that ought to be determined democratically. In this paper, I argue that Waheed Hussain’s recent account of the conditions that must be met in order for the use of market power in pursuit of social change to avoid conflict with democratic values is objectionably narrow, and offer an alternative account that avoids the problems that undermine his account without abandoning the requirement that democratic values be properly respected. The central feature of my account that makes this possible is a broader conception of democratic processes that includes public deliberation and debate aimed at shaping informal social norms and practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy & Public Affairs\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"237-274\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/PAPA.12191\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy & Public Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/PAPA.12191\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/PAPA.12191","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

:人们普遍认为,公正社会的特点是民主政治体制和基于市场的经济体制相结合。致力于民主和市场相结合的基础是这样一种观点,即社会中某些具有规范意义的结果应该由民主进程决定,而其他结果则应该由市场进程决定。基于这一观点,我们有理由反对以绕过民主进程和影响本应民主决定的结果的方式使用市场进程。在本文中,我认为,瓦希德·侯赛因最近对利用市场力量追求社会变革以避免与民主价值观冲突所必须满足的条件的描述是客观狭隘的,并提供了一种替代性的描述,在不放弃适当尊重民主价值观的要求的情况下,避免了破坏他的描述的问题。使这成为可能的我的叙述的核心特征是对民主进程有一个更广泛的概念,其中包括旨在塑造非正式社会规范和实践的公众审议和辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ethical Consumerism, Democratic Values, and Justice
: It is widely believed that just societies would be characterized by some combination of democratic political institutions and market-based economic institutions. Underlying the commitment to the combination of democracy and markets is the view that certain normatively significant outcomes in a society ought to be determined by democratic processes, while others ought to be determined by market processes. On this view, we have reason to object when market processes are employed in ways that circumvent democratic processes and affect outcomes that ought to be determined democratically. In this paper, I argue that Waheed Hussain’s recent account of the conditions that must be met in order for the use of market power in pursuit of social change to avoid conflict with democratic values is objectionably narrow, and offer an alternative account that avoids the problems that undermine his account without abandoning the requirement that democratic values be properly respected. The central feature of my account that makes this possible is a broader conception of democratic processes that includes public deliberation and debate aimed at shaping informal social norms and practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
23
×
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