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 last decade has seen the rise of a new alliance among U.S. housing advocates, human rights advocates, and right to the city advocates that stands unified in opposition to rising rents, gentrifi...
Abstract: The last decade has seen the rise of a new alliance among U.S. housing advocates, human rights advocates, and right to the city advocates that stands unified in opposition to rising rents, gentrifi...
16 citations
01 Apr 2020
TL;DR: In this article, an analysis of an anti-irregular anti-migration management system is presented, which is based on the idealization of the world's ideal biopolitical and geopolitical organization.
Abstract: Migration management expresses the idealizations of policymakers: how they view the world’s ideal biopolitical and geopolitical organization. This article presents an analysis of an anti-irregular ...
16 citations
Cites background from "Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pl..."
...Yet justifications for immigration, asylum, and border security policies are inherently moral arguments (Carens, 2014; Gibney, 2004; Parekh, 2016; Walzer, 1983)....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors argue that Berlinian value pluralism fits best with a liberal or moderate kind of communitarianism that balances community with other goods, especially personal autonomy, which is at odds with conservative communitarianisms that tend to place existing traditions beyond question, and with radical variants of communitarism, such as Marxism and classical anarchism, which look forward to future communities in which the need to cope with hard public choices has largely been eliminated.
Abstract: Some theorists have argued recently that Berlinian value pluralism points not to liberalism, as Berlin supposed, but, in effect, to some form of communitarianism. To what extent is this true, and, to the extent that it is true, what kind of communitarianism fits best with the pluralist outlook? I argue that pluralists should acknowledge community as an important source of value and as a substantial value in itself, but they should also be prepared to question traditions and to respect values other than community. In particular, pluralism points to personal autonomy as playing a special role when we must choose among incommensurable goods in conflict. Consequently, the pluralist outlook is at odds with conservative communitarianisms that tend to place existing traditions beyond question, and with radical variants of communitarianism, such as Marxism and classical anarchism, which look forward to future communities in which the need to cope with hard public choices has largely been eliminated. Rather, Berlinian pluralism fits best with a liberal or moderate kind of communitarianism that balances community with other goods, especially personal autonomy.
16 citations
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: Moral economy is defined as a community centered response, arising from a sense of common g o d, reinforced by custom or tradition, to an unjus t appropriation or abuse of land, labor, human dignit y, atural resources, or material goods; moreover, it is the regular behaviors producing social arrangements that promote just relations between unequal person s or groups within a community to achieve long-term sustainability as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: MORAL ECONOMY: CLAIMS FOR THE COMMON GOOD By Elizabeth D. Mauritz The cases, issues, and theoretical convictions of t he social science work on the concept ‘Moral Economy’ are explored to develop a full understandi ng of what divergent theories and accounts share in common and to gauge the philosophical relevance of Moral Economy. The work of E.P. Thompson, James Scott, William Booth, Thomas Arnold, and Dani el L ttle are featured along with contemporary cases of Moral Economy. Conceptual clarification is guided by the categorization of common qualities including the scope of application, whether it is u sed historically or normatively, relevant time fram e, nature of the community, goals that motivate practi tioners, and how people are epistemically situated in relation to the Moral Economy under consideration. Moral Economy is identified here as a community centered response, arising from a sense of common g o d, reinforced by custom or tradition, to an unjus t appropriation or abuse of land, labor, human dignit y, atural resources, or material goods; moreover, it is the regular behaviors producing social arrangements tha promote just relations between unequal person s or groups within a community to achieve long-term s ocial sustainability. I argue that the moral economists are right to ins ist that people regularly make collective claims and take action on behalf of their communities for reasons that are not primarily self-interested. Furthermore, I demonstrate that social ethics and p olitical behavior are culturally and temporally contextual, i.e. non-ideal. Moral Economy must be u nderstood as economic through behaviors and relationships of exchange not limited to the market or following (neo)classical economics. Importantly , Moral Economy recognizes that this system of exchan ge is embedded within the larger society. Building upon that, I maintain that all communities are embe dded to some degree, so Moral Economy is not limited to peasant contexts or historical periods. It is not an ethical theory, but a system of practi ce. Moral Economy is guided by a commitment to the ethos of t he common good. The debate between Moral Economy and political eco nomy is laid out with special attention given to the disagreements between their two most i dent fiable figures, James C. Scott and Samuel L. Popkin. While Moral Economy and political economy m ay have originated from the same general considerations regarding the political and economic influence on individuals and society, they have ta ken distinctly different trajectories. Later Moral Econ omy is compared with several political philosophies including Liberalism, Socialism, and Anarchism. Whi le Moral Economy may share more in common with Anarchism and Socialism, I contend it is more compatible in practice with Liberalism.
16 citations
TL;DR: The twenty-first century will pose substantial and unprecedented challenges to modern societies and universities of technology have an essential role to play in meeting these concerns by generating scientific knowledge, achieving technological breakthroughs, and educating scientists and engineers to think and work for the public good.
Abstract: The twenty-first century will pose substantial and unprecedented challenges to modern societies. The world population is growing while societies are pursuing higher levels of global well-being. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous systems, increasing energy demands and related problems of climate change are only a few of the many major issues humanity is facing in this century. Universities of technology have an essential role to play in meeting these concerns by generating scientific knowledge, achieving technological breakthroughs, and educating scientists and engineers to think and work for the public good.
16 citations
Cites background from "Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pl..."
...The emphasis on interactions between the academic domain and the market domain raises concerns that have been discussed by philosopher Michael Walzer, author of Spheres of Justice (Walzer 1983)....
[...]