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
TL;DR: The Amsterdam Treaty is set to bring about various changes both in the way asylum and immigration policies in the EU are developed and in their position in the overall picture of European integration as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The Amsterdam Treaty is set to bring about various changes both in the way asylum and immigration policies in the EU are developed and in their position in the overall picture of European integration. This article traces the development of European level cooperation on asylum matters through four phases, focusing on that oft‐stated, but as yet unmet, goal of harmonisation. For all its changes the Amsterdam Treaty looks like a missed opportunity for serious progress in asylum matters, not just for the states concerned, but also for protection‐seekers and Europeans seeking to maintain humanitarian standards. Above all, in seeking to create an undeveloped notion of freedom, security and justice in Europe, it appears that the member states and Commission yet again are in a situation of barely managing the present, while blindly planning for the great unknown of tomorrow.
19 citations
TL;DR: Receiving spending money from a boyfriend is common among adolescent women in populations targeted by pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection prevention interventions, and may undermine interventions' effectiveness.
19 citations
Cites methods from "Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pl..."
...Methods Theoretical models This study is guided by the theories of money and commodities by Lee Rainwater and Michael Walzer who hypothesized that full membership in modern industrial societies requires deploying money for consumer goods beyond the level of subsistence (22, 23)....
[...]
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2019
19 citations
11 Oct 2009
TL;DR: A review of the literature on the question of whether nationalism and democracy constitute complementary or competing logics can be found in this article, where the authors bring together and discuss those works that have addressed the question on both a theoretical and an empirical level.
Abstract: Upon initial consideration, the logics of nationalism and democracy seem to be contradictory. Nationalism appears to be predicated upon a doctrine of exclusivity, whereas democracy appears to be based on an inclusivist one. Upon careful contemplation, however, one notices that, historically, these two phenomena have frequently coexisted; even today, democratic regimes seem to exist and thrive (almost exclusively) within nation-states. The aim of this review is to bring together and discuss those works that have addressed the question of whether nationalism and democracy constitute complementary or competing logics. The debate operates on both a theoretical/normative level, and an empirical level. For a first group of scholars, democracy cannot exist without nationalism; it is thought that a certain degree of (cultural) homogeneity is needed for a political system to work. These scholars argue that a common national identity fosters solidarity and trust and gives human beings a sense of belonging. Empirical studies have revealed that (cultural) heterogeneity leads to the deterioration of trust, political participation, and the overall solvency of the welfare state. Those who emphasize the contradictory logics of these two concepts have not found such correlations in their empirical findings - revealing that multicultural states are also prone to success. Hence, for them, there is no reason to exclude people from democratic decision-making processes on grounds of their nationality, something that undermines the very princi-ples of democracy. Even worse, it is argued that the fusion of nationalistic and democratic principles has led to some of the deadliest conflicts in modern history.
19 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the arguments deployed in favour of temporary labour migration over permanent migration are flawed, normatively, and that empirically temporary labor migration programs produce effects in receiving states that are even worse than those (allegedly) produced by permanent migration.
Abstract: Temporary labour migration programs are often proposed as a way to provide the benefits of migration in general, while mitigating the allegedly problematic effects of permanent migration. Here I propose that the arguments deployed in favour of temporary labour migration over permanent migration are flawed, normatively, and that empirically temporary labour migration programs produce effects in receiving states that are even worse than those (allegedly) produced by permanent migration. As a result, I shall argue that, for reasons of consistency, advocates of restricting permanent migration should support restricting temporary labour migration programs as well. I conclude not by arguing that temporary labour migration programs should be abandoned, but rather that we must focus more seriously on re-constructing temporary labour migration programs that do not produce these dilemmas, as well as on generating policies that alleviate the challenges they often pose in receiving societies.
19 citations