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 potential for symbiosis between the two fields is vast and inspiring, even though it has only been unleashed partially and incidentally thus far as discussed by the authors, and the boundaries of that potential contribution are.
Abstract: Organization theory and business ethics are essentially the positive and normative sides of the very same coin, reflecting on how human cooperative activities are organized and how they ought to be organized respectively. It is therefore unfortunate that – due to the relatively impermeable manmade boundaries segregating the corresponding scholarly communities into separate schools and departments, professional associations, and scientific journals – the potential symbiosis between the two fields has not yet fully materialized. In this essay we make a modest attempt at establishing further connectivity by surveying the terrain covered by the two disciplines jointly, as if the boundaries between them did not matter. We commence by providing a concise overview of the organization theory discipline for interested non-specialists from the field of business ethics. Next, we proceed to point out four research themes commonly investigated by members of both communities, and also a variety of organization-theoretical perspectives on each. In the final part of this essay we explore what organization theory has to offer business ethics, and what the boundaries of that potential contribution are. We warn skeptical readers in advance that the spirit and tone of our essay is most definitely upbeat, as we are convinced that the potential for symbiosis between the two fields is vast and inspiring, even though it has only been unleashed partially and incidentally thus far.
39 citations
01 May 2019
TL;DR: Galisanka and Andrius as discussed by the authors present an intellectual biography of American political philosopher John Rawls from his early years to the publication of his classic work, A Theory of Justice.
Abstract: Author(s): Galisanka, Andrius | Advisor(s): Bevir, Mark | Abstract: This dissertation is an intellectual biography of American political philosopher John Rawls [1921-2002] from his early years to the publication of his classic work, A Theory of Justice [1971]. I focus the historical narrative on Rawls's changing conceptions of philosophy: his ways of raising ethical and political questions and justifying answers to them. I pay particular attention to two aspects of the conception of philosophy found in A Theory of Justice: its claim that ethical and political positions are defended by showing that all reasonable persons endorse them in their political judgments, and its aspiration to explicate all of these political judgments in terms of principles of justice.This conception of philosophy was very influential for Anglophone political thought, contributing to the resurgence of analytic political theory in the 1950s and 1960s. I aim to understand the intellectual origins of this influential philosophical approach and thereby shed light on A Theory of Justice and contemporary political thought. Taking this historical approach, I follow the development of Rawls's thought, contextualizing him in contemporary traditions and analyzing his numerous private papers recently deposited in the Harvard University Archives.I argue that, much to our surprise, Rawls's conception of philosophy originated in logical positivism, the very tradition that is thought to have foreclosed the possibility of political thought in the 1940s. Inspired by logical positivists, Rawls modeled ethics on the "method of science," and, taking ethical judgment as "data," tried to formulate principles, or laws, to explicate them. This analogy between reasoning in ethics and reasoning in science provided Rawls with a conception of objectivity: principles of justice were objective if they explicated the considered political judgments of all reasonable persons. This notion of objectivity made possible reasoned discussion on ethical and political issues and required attention to actual political questions. Yet it also committed Rawls to a contestable view that all reasonable persons agree on a sufficient number of political judgments to yield a conception of justice.This conception of philosophy changed over the following two decades, but, I argue, it remained positivist. In the early 1950s, Rawls drew on linguistic philosophy's conception of ethical reasoning as a practice, and in the late 1950s he was led on the Wittgensteinian path of considering political questions against the background of seeing morality as a form of life. Nevertheless, the influence of his Harvard colleague W.V.O. Quine in the 1960s brought to light Rawls's positivist conception of philosophy. Rawls continued to justify political principles by the fact that all reasonable persons endorse them in their political judgments.My historical narrative contests and supplements the traditional interpretations of Rawls as a Kantian or a theorist in the social contract and rational choice theory traditions. It therefore paints a different picture of 20th century Anglophone political thought. But, as I argue in Epilogue, my narrative also helps to illuminate Rawls's shift to Political Liberalism. Doing so, I hope it opens new questions about contemporary attempts to define shared political reasons.
39 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2007TL;DR: This chapter discusses central perspectives in political philosophy, health insurance, and old-age or retirement pensions, as well as welfare or means-tested benefits, part I and part II.
Abstract: 1. Introduction 2. Central perspectives in political philosophy 3. Health insurance, part I 4. Health insurance, part II 5. Old-age or retirement pensions 6. Welfare or means-tested benefits, part I 7. Welfare or means-tested benefits, part II 8. Conclusion.
39 citations
TL;DR: In this article, it is argued that whereas the dominant approach in social justice is essentially individualistic, the concept of citizenship focuses rather on individuals as members of a societal community, from which both rights and obligations are derived.
Abstract: Discussions on the problems of the welfare state are increasingly framed in terms of citizenship rather than social justice. The popularity of the concept of citizenship raises the question of its implications for social justice theory and research. In this article it is argued that whereas the dominant approach in social justice is essentially individualistic, the concept of citizenship focuses rather on individuals as members of a societal community, from which both rights and obligations are derived. This focus on communal membership suggests three important topics for social justice theory and research: (i) the need to distinguish between a civic and a justice motive for human behavior, (ii) the need to specify the frame of reference respondents should use when they make their justice judgments, and (iii) the need to recognize the fact that justice judgments may result from both adhering to criteria of justice and considering the consequences of their application.
39 citations
Cites background from "Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pl..."
...Rather, the attention is focused on the way in which problems of social justice are connected with this context ( Walzer, 1983; MacIntyre, 1988)....
[...]
...Although the attempts of foreigners, immigrants, and refugees to attain membership of rich countries are a growing and important problem, we do not discuss this matter here (see in this respect e.g., Walzer, 1983 ), but we concentrate on the relevant aspects of the status people possess once citizenship is obtained....
[...]
TL;DR: The Moral Standing of States as mentioned in this paper is the title of an essay Michael Walzer wrote in response to four critics of the theory of nonintervention defended in Just and Unjust Wars.
Abstract: “The Moral Standing of States” is the title of an essay Michael Walzer wrote in response to four critics of the theory of nonintervention defended in Just and Unjust Wars. It states a theme to which he has returned in subsequent work. I offer four sets of comments. First, by way of introduction, I describe the controversy between Walzer and his critics and try to identify the central point of contention. Second, I make some observations about the wider conception of global justice suggested by Walzer's remarks, emphasizing the extent of the difference between this conception and the traditional view of a “society of states” to which it stands as an alternative. The central value in Walzer's conception is collective self-determination, so I comment about its meaning and importance. Finally, I consider whether and how concerns about the moral standing of states bear on the kinds of cases of humanitarian intervention that the world community has actually faced since the book and article were written, particularly since the end of the cold war.
39 citations