政治自由主义 = Political liberalism

The Law of Peoples John Rawls Harvard 1999 John Rawls, the great political philosopher, has turned his reflections to questions of international justice, much as his philosophical ancestor Kant did toward the end of his career. Indeed, Kant's conception of a "pacific federation" of states in Perpetual Peace is Rawls's acknowledged model for the "realistic utopia" sketched in The Law of Peoples, which expands upon his 1993 essay by the same title (without, however, revising its basic argument). Despite differing philosophical constraints and geopolitical conditions, both Kant and Rawls aim to develop an ideal normative framework for international law that accommodates a measure of realism and rejects the idea of a world-state. Unfortunately, in its uncritical acceptance of so-called "decent hierarchical societies" even at the level of ideal theory, the normative claim of Rawls's Law of Peoples is undermined. This philosophical appeasement, meant to secure perpetual peace in our time through a moderately demanding Law of Peoples that liberal and "decent" hierarchical societies alike can endorse, departs fundamentally from Kant's cosmopolitanism. For Kant, the "First Definitive Article of a Perpetual Peace-as opposed to a temporary interruption of hostilities-is that each member state of the foedus pacif cum must have a republican form of government, which is partly founded upon "the principle of legal equality for everyone (as citizens)." By contrast, Rawls weakens his ideal of international justice to buy the assent of hierarchical societies, which by definition lack equality among citizens, at the price of sacrificing a theoretical basis for justifying reforms of the practices and institutions of these hierarchical societies above a minimal level of decency. Rawls's complex argument begins by extending the original position, in which principles of justice for the basic structure of society are chosen under epistemic constraints that ensure fairness, from a single liberal society to what he calls the Society of Liberal Peoples. In a second step, though still within ideal theory, he argues that the substantive principles comprising the Law of Peoples are also acceptable to decent hierarchical societies, which possess decent consultation hierarchies and common good conceptions of justice. Despite being inegalitarian, decent hierarchical societies do respect basic human rights, allow some dissent, and at least consult with representatives of groups whose members are denied full citizenship rights. …

The Law of Peoples

This collection of essays, based on the Locke Lectures that Nagel delivered at Oxford University in 1990, addresses the conflict between the claims of the group and those of the individual. Nagel attempts to clarify the nature of the conflict - one of the most fundamental problems in moral and political theory - and concludes that its reconciliation is the essential task of any legitimate political system.

Equality and Partiality.

Searching for most marketed publication or reading source in the world? We provide them all in style kind as word, txt, kindle, pdf, zip, rar and ppt. one of them is this certified the great escape health wealth and the origins of inequality that has actually been composed by Still confused ways to get it? Well, simply review online or download by registering in our website here. Click them. Have leisure times? Read the great escape health wealth and the origins of inequality writer by Why? A best seller book in the world with great worth as well as material is incorporated with intriguing words. Where? Just here, in this site you could review online. Want download? Obviously offered, download them additionally below. Offered documents are as word, ppt, txt, kindle, pdf, rar, and zip. Our goal is always to offer you an assortment of cost-free ebooks too as aid resolve your troubles. We have got a considerable collection of totally free of expense Book for people from every single stroll of life. We have got tried our finest to gather a sizable library of preferred cost-free as well as paid files. GO TO THE TECHNICAL WRITING FOR AN EXPANDED TYPE OF THIS THE GREAT ESCAPE HEALTH WEALTH AND THE ORIGINS OF INEQUALITY, ALONG WITH A CORRECTLY FORMATTED VERSION OF THE INSTANCE MANUAL PAGE ABOVE.

The Great Escape: health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations

Elsewhere we have responded to the so-called demandingness objection to consequentialism – that consequentialism is excessively demanding and is therefore unacceptable as a moral theory – by introd...

/pdf/institutional-consequentialism-and-global-governance-3oq6x5l2po.pdf

Institutional consequentialism and global governance

Mutually beneficial exchanges in markets can be exploitative because one party takes advantage of an underlying injustice. For instance, employers of sweatshop workers are often accused of exploiting the desperate conditions of their employees, although the latter accept the terms of their employment voluntarily. A weakness of this account of exploitation is its tendency for over-inclusiveness. Certainly, given the prevalence of global and domestic socioeconomic inequalities, not all exchanges that take place against background injustices should be considered exploitative. This paper offers a framework to identify exploitation in mutually beneficial exchange, focusing on the case of sweatshop labor. It argues that an employer can be viewed as taking unfair advantage of an underlying injustice if and only if the employer’s surplus from the exchange in the unjust state of affairs exceeds the surplus it could maximally obtain in a just state of affairs. The paper illustrates the applicability of this framework using three different conceptions of justice and argues that it is superior to microlevel accounts of exploitation that regard background justice as irrelevant. The paper concludes by describing some normative implications that follow from judging an exchange exploitative.

Exploiting Injustice in Mutually Beneficial Market Exchange: The Case of Sweatshop Labor

It isn’t saying much to claim that morality is demanding; the question, rather, is: can morality be so demanding that we have reason not to follow its dictates? According to many, it can, if that morality is a consequentialist one. This paper takes the plausibility and coherence of this objection – the Demandingness Objection – as a given. Our question, therefore, is how to respond to the Objection. We put forward a response that we think has not received sufficient attention in the literature: institutional consequentialism. This is a consequentialist view that, however, requires institutional systems, and not individuals, to follow the consequentialist principle. We first introduce the Objection, then explain the theory of institutional consequentialism and how it responds to the objection. In the remainder of the paper, we defend the view against potential objections.

/pdf/consequentialism-and-its-demands-the-role-of-institutions-rsocoq65h8.pdf

Consequentialism and Its Demands: The Role of Institutions

This article develops an account of how economic and political institutions can limit the applicability of principles of justice even in non-relational cosmopolitan conceptions. It shows that fundamental principles of justice underdetermine fair distributive shares as well as justice-based requirements. It argues that institutions partially constitute the content of justice by determining distributive shares and by resolving indeterminacies about justice-based requirements resulting from strategic interaction and disagreement. In the absence of existing institutions principles of justice might not be applicable for assessing distributions or guiding individual action and institutional design. Hence, accepting a specific cosmopolitan conception of justice is insufficient to settle global distributive questions.

The Basic Structure and the Principles of Justice

This paper critically evaluates some central arguments offered by nationalists against stringent international requirements of justice. The first part considers and rejects Michael Walzer's argument against international justice relying on a view about the social meanings of goods. The refutation points out, first, that Walzer's thesis is not true as an empirical matter, and, second, it is not an attractive normative position since it is biased towards certain con - ceptions of the good. The second part of the paper considers non-relativistic arguments for national partiality. It distinguishes between instrumental and intrinsic arguments and argues that neither form is capable of justifying the nationalist thesis. Instrumental arguments would have to rely on implausible empirical premises to justify national partiality. Intrinsic arguments either would have to invoke a view of the impersonal value of national self-determination that is unacceptable to liberals, or need to come up with a justification showing how the intrinsic goods produced by political communities are capable of overriding claims of outsiders.

Andras Miklos

Papers

Institutional consequentialism and global governance

Exploiting Injustice in Mutually Beneficial Market Exchange: The Case of Sweatshop Labor

Consequentialism and Its Demands: The Role of Institutions

The Basic Structure and the Principles of Justice

Nationalist Criticisms of Cosmopolitan Justice