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
Dissertation•
01 Nov 2016
19 citations
TL;DR: A broad distinction is drawn between 'constructive' political education which takes human nature as given and aims to redirect pupils to new priorities and'reconstruction' education which tries to effect a transformation of the mind-set and produce new persons as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: It is a recurrent feature of the history of political thought that thinkers have turned their attention to education. Some have been concerned with the reproduction of a political culture through education. Others have sought to redress the failings of present generations by re-educating future citizens. A broad distinction is drawn between 'constructive' political education which takes human nature as given and aims to redirect pupils to new priorities and 'reconstructive' education which tries to effect a transformation of the mind-set and produce new persons. Constructive theories include early utilitarians, conservatives such as Oakeshott and modern democratic realists. Examples of reconstructive theories are communitarians, such as Rousseau and participatory democrats, including J. S. Mill and Dewey. The article concludes with a discussion of attempts, such as that by Rawls, to educate for political neutrality.
19 citations
06 Jun 2017
TL;DR: Gross as discussed by the authors argued that hate speech can not be prohibited due to its content, but rather due to the social perception of a third party, and proposed a theory of reputation as the right to the fair competition for the social perceptions of oneself.
Abstract: Clarissa Piterman Gross. Can we say it or not? Hate speech, freedom of speech and the liberal egalitarian democracy. 354 p. Doctorate Faculty of Law, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2017. This work corroborates the thesis that hate speech can not be prohibited due to its content. The legitimacy of coercive imposition of majority decisions on minorities depends on each person being guaranteed the freedom to express herself on ethical, moral, political and aesthetic issues, both in service of her own personal identity and in contribution to the normative environment in which people lead their lives. I defend this thesis, based on Ronald Dworkin's and C. Edwin Baker's coherentist theories of freedom of speech, from the Jeremy Waldron's criticism grounded on what Waldron considers to be his distinctly legal conception of dignity. I argue that the reasons offered by Waldron's conception of dignity to prohibit hate speech collapse into two failed hypotheses, both incapable of universalization. The first one is the egalitarian argument of a consequentialist nature, while the second claims a right not to be confronted with the fact that certain people deny the egalitarian foundations of justice. I also offer Dworkinian answers to three criticisms seeking to point to internal inconsistencies in Dworkin's defense of the freedom to express hateful content. The criticisms are the following: (1) if speech of discriminatory content run counter to the foundations of the reputation of individuals, Dworkin can not at the same time advocate for the protection of a right to individual reputation and defend the protection of speech of discriminatory content; (2) it makes no sense to insist that the political order is informed by the protection of individual ethical independence if the ethical, moral, political and aesthetic environment systematically prevents the formation of this sense of independence in persons belonging to disadvantaged and stigmatized groups; (3) the same reasons that justify the prohibition of hate speech in specific contexts, such as the workplace and university campi, also justify the general prohibition of such speech. In response to such criticisms, (1) I offer a theory of reputation as the right to the fair competition for the social perception of oneself. The right to reputation thus framed only justifies the prohibition of speech if, besides of having a deleterious impact on the social perception of a third party, the speech act's intention is to defame. This conception of the right to reputation is consistent with protetcing the paradigmatic cases of hate speech. (2) I argue that Dworkin's theory of justice entails general positive obligations on the part of the state to promote equality between social groups. These positive duties are consistent with preserving the legitimacy of the state coercive power for the dissenting minorities' individual freedom of speech rights are concomitantly protected. (3) Finally, I argue that it is plausible that specific contexts present specific reasons for prohibiting hate speech that do not extend to public debate in general. The prohibition of hate speech to serve the specific purposes of these contexts does not undermine the legitimacy of the State precisely because there are other channels through which this speech can find free expression.
19 citations
TL;DR: The authors scrutinizes the claim that liberal egalitarians are now the last real torchbearers for the principles of egalitarian reform and shows that the real deficiencies of much liberal egalitarianism not only resemble but in many ways actually provide the sort of discourse within which parties like New Labour operate.
Abstract: This article scrutinizes the claim that liberal egalitarians are now the last real torchbearers for the principles of egalitarian reform. This claim might appear eccentric on the surface, but is increasingly common in leftist circles following the recent abandonment of such principles by formerly socialist parties. Programmes of 'social inclusion', for instance, are now widely criticized for substituting a desire to tackle economic inequalities with an incitement for us to become obedient, productive citizens. Focusing here on the claim that liberal egalitarians pose a radical alternative to this kind of discourse, I show that the real deficiencies of much liberal egalitarianism not only resemble but in many ways actually provide the sort of discourse within which parties like New Labour operate.
19 citations
TL;DR: The State of Working America, 2008/2009 as discussed by the authors, by Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and Heidi Shierholz. 461 p.24.95 paper.
Abstract: The State of Working America, 2008/2009. By Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and Heidi Shierholz. An Economic Policy Institute Book. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009. 461 p. 24.95 paper.
19 citations