可怜那些没有准备好和不愿意的人:马丁的《高等教育权》中的选择、机会和不公正

IF 1.3 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Philip Cook
{"title":"可怜那些没有准备好和不愿意的人:马丁的《高等教育权》中的选择、机会和不公正","authors":"Philip Cook","doi":"10.1177/14778785231160066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For Martin, the right to free higher education may be claimed only by those ready and willing pursue autonomy supporting higher education. The unready and unwilling, among whom may be counted carers, disabled, and devout, are excluded. This is unjust. I argue that this injustice follows from a tension between three elements of Martin’s argument: (1) a universal right to autonomy supporting higher education; (2) qualifications on entitlements to access this right in order to preserve the value of higher educational goods; (3) luck egalitarian motivations in Martin’s distributive ethics. I consider options for avoiding such injustices and their implications for Martin’s argument.","PeriodicalId":46679,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Research in Education","volume":"21 1","pages":"82 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pity the unready and the unwilling: Choice, chance, and injustice in Martin’s ‘The Right to Higher Education’\",\"authors\":\"Philip Cook\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14778785231160066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For Martin, the right to free higher education may be claimed only by those ready and willing pursue autonomy supporting higher education. The unready and unwilling, among whom may be counted carers, disabled, and devout, are excluded. This is unjust. I argue that this injustice follows from a tension between three elements of Martin’s argument: (1) a universal right to autonomy supporting higher education; (2) qualifications on entitlements to access this right in order to preserve the value of higher educational goods; (3) luck egalitarian motivations in Martin’s distributive ethics. I consider options for avoiding such injustices and their implications for Martin’s argument.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Research in Education\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"82 - 87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Research in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231160066\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14778785231160066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对马丁来说,免费高等教育的权利只能由那些准备好并愿意追求支持高等教育的自治的人来主张。那些没有准备好和不愿意的人,其中可能包括照顾者、残疾人和虔诚的人,被排除在外。这是不公平的。我认为,这种不公正源于马丁论证的三个要素之间的紧张关系:(1)支持高等教育的普遍自治权;(二)为维护高等教育产品价值而享有此项权利的资格;(3)马丁分配伦理学中的运气平等主义动机。我考虑了避免这种不公正的选择,以及它们对马丁论点的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pity the unready and the unwilling: Choice, chance, and injustice in Martin’s ‘The Right to Higher Education’
For Martin, the right to free higher education may be claimed only by those ready and willing pursue autonomy supporting higher education. The unready and unwilling, among whom may be counted carers, disabled, and devout, are excluded. This is unjust. I argue that this injustice follows from a tension between three elements of Martin’s argument: (1) a universal right to autonomy supporting higher education; (2) qualifications on entitlements to access this right in order to preserve the value of higher educational goods; (3) luck egalitarian motivations in Martin’s distributive ethics. I consider options for avoiding such injustices and their implications for Martin’s argument.
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
Theory and Research in Education
Theory and Research in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Theory and Research in Education, formerly known as The School Field, is an international peer reviewed journal that publishes theoretical, empirical and conjectural papers contributing to the development of educational theory, policy and practice.
×
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