Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality
TL;DR: Lawler as mentioned in this paper argued that being for the freeze means that one is not for disarmament, which is hardly a rational position in the sense that it is suspect if not immoral, in the eyes of some.
Abstract: that a plurality of the American Catholic bishops endorse a nuclear freeze (p. 4), saying that they are thus "taking their stance with Moscow,55 which is for a freeze, and not with the Vatican, which "is still in favor of disarmament?not a freeze.55 To make any sense at all, Mr. Lawler must mean that being for the freeze means that one is not for disarmament? hardly a rational position. One recalls here the arguments, during the 19305s and 19405s, that being for racial justice in the United States was suspect if not immoral, in the eyes of some, because the communists also favored it.
Citations
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The New Zealand Treasury's Living Standards Framework (LSF) is a guide for thinking about good economic, environmental and social policy in an integrated way - policy that aims to enhance individual and communal wellbeing on a sustained basis as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The New Zealand Treasury's Living Standards Framework (LSF) is a guide for thinking about good economic, environmental and social policy in an integrated way - policy that aims to enhance individual and communal wellbeing on a sustained basis. This paper presents an evolving stylised model (one possible model) for the LSF; it is work in progress. The model is constructed by weaving together threads from the wellbeing, sustainable development and endogenous economic growth literatures. Its primary aim is to capture all key attributes of the LSF in a unified model. In doing so, I wish to identify the domain of a public policy that aims to enhance collective intergenerational wellbeing, highlight the key complementarities and tradeoffs that we face as a society in this pursuit, and explore the policy options and levers available to the policy makers to relax these tradeoffs and exploit the complementarities to the same end.
15 citations
01 Sep 1992
Abstract: some respects these newly acquired resources represent an embarrassment of riches as our capacities for organizing these data in intellectually constructive ways have not proceeded apace. Of the analytical perspectives embraced by social scientists working in various disciplines, those based on one or another variant of rational choice theory have attracted the greatest attention in recent years. Yet, as critics of
15 citations
TL;DR: The authors introduced the concept of claimed co-ethnics as an interstitial category that further complicates the triadic nexus between national minorities, nationalising states and kin-states, and elucidates how citizenship policies can affect groups that challenge the exact fit between ethnicity and nation.
Abstract: The paper introduces the often neglected concept of ‘claimed co-ethnics’ in the analysis of citizenship policies. It argues that this is an interstitial category that further complicates the triadic nexus between national minorities, nationalising states and kin-states. The ‘claimed co-ethnics’ are defined as people who are recognised by the citizenship (or ethnizenship) conferring state as belonging to its main ethnic group, although they themselves do not embrace that definition. In addition to bringing the issue of claimed co-ethnics into focus, the paper elucidates how citizenship policies can affect groups that challenge the exact fit between ethnicity and nation, showing how national governments through particular citizenship policies and categorisation practices engage in the construction of these groups. The paper shows that the triadic nexus framework, which has had a strong influence on citizenship and minorities scholarship, needs to be revised to include unidirectional relations betwee...
15 citations
Cites background from "Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pl..."
...The potential candidates are then a ‘particular group of outsiders, recognized as national or ethnic “relatives”’ (Walzer, 1984, p. 41)....
[...]
...Walzer (1984) was among the first authors that tried to conceptualise kin-state citizenship and its relations to the populations they recognised as belonging to its constitutive ethnic group....
[...]
TL;DR: It is argued that a reasonable principle of need must be indeterminate, and three different ways that this can be dealt with are examined: appendicizing the principle with further principles, imposing determinacy, or empowering decision makers.
Abstract: The principle of need—the idea that resources should be allocated according to need—is often invoked in priority setting in the health care sector. In this article, I argue that a reasonable principle of need must be indeterminate, and examine three different ways that this can be dealt with: appendicizing the principle with further principles, imposing determinacy, or empowering decision makers. I argue that need must be conceptualized as a composite property composed of at least two factors: health shortfall and capacity to benefit. When one examines how the different factors relate to each other, one discovers that this is sometimes indeterminate. I illustrate this indeterminacy in this article by applying the small improvement argument. If the relation between the factors are always determinate, the comparative relation changes by a small adjustment. Yet, if two needs are dissimilar but of seemingly equal magnitude, the comparative relation does not change by a small adjustment of one of the factors. I then outline arguments in favor of each of the three strategies for dealing with indeterminacy, but also point out that all strategies have significant shortcomings. More research is needed concerning how to deal with this indeterminacy, and the most promising path seems to be to scrutinize the position of the principle of need among a plurality of relevant principles for priority setting in the health care sector.
15 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors introduce three storylines that address the relation between economic growth, technical innovation and environmental impact, and assess if and how these storylines as guiding visions increase our range of future orientations.
Abstract: Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to introduce three storylines that address the relation between economic growth, technical innovation and environmental impact The paper assesses if and how these storylines as guiding visions increase our range of future orientations
Design/methodology/approach
The paper first explains its general outline and then explores different strands of literature to arrive at its analytical conclusions
Findings
Pursuing the three storylines in a paradigmatic articulation creates paradoxes The growth paradigm focuses on economic growth as its main goal To overcome environmental degradation, products have to be substituted by environmentally friendly alternatives, but the continuous substitution of finite resources seems unlikely possible The storyline of innovation sees technological development as a driver of economic progress, and holds that innovations allow the decoupling of economic growth from environmental impact, a claim that is compromised by the occurrence of rebound effects The degrowth storyline holds that economic growth has to be stopped altogether, but is unclear how this can be done
Originality/value
By articulating paradigmatic perspectives as storylines, a new understanding on how these perspectives can be figured as a constructive repertoire of guiding visions and not as mere theory-based descriptions
15 citations
Cites background from "Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pl..."
...Extending the diversity of options also alludes to the different spheres of action, such as economy, politics, civil society, family that characterize modern society (Walzer, 1983, Pesch, 2014)....
[...]