Justice

In the wake of the nonideal theory turn in political philosophy, few have paused to ask: Is nonideal theory a form of ideology? And perhaps even fewer have paused to ask: Is the debate between ideal/nonideal theorists itself a form of ideology? To the first question, I argue that nonideal theory is ideological in virtue of the fact that it rules out more utopian ways of theorizing by methodological fiat, and in so doing, risks entrenching an unjust status quo. To (...) the second question, I argue that the debate between ideal/nonideal theorists is itself a form of ideology, one which serves to reinforce the status quo by convincing political philosophers/theorists that the most pressing problems are problems about what we should think about what we are doing. But this is false. An upshot of my argument is that we ought to abandon the ideal/nonideal theory debate and address the pressing problems of political philosophy head-on in pluralist fashion, oscillating back and forth between these two modes of theorizing without a decision procedure to tell us when we should take up one perspective or the other. (shrink)

The orange hand is waving frantically broh. Ought we to jump into the river or not? Stay tuned for a collection of thoughts riddled with noetic contradictions and repurposed political anxiety. Resist in whatever way presents itself to you broh. Then abide.

This book addresses a systematic weakness in contemporary political theory and philosophy. Most contemporary political theorists and philosophers are unable to explain, vindicate, or justify the authority of the liberal democratic institutions most of them live under. Instead, they endorse moralist accounts of the right to rule which require governments to meet impossibly high standards to avoid condemnation as illegitimate usurpers. This is true not just of the dominant Rawlsian mainstream, but of many of its radical critics, whose membership of (...) more critical traditions leaves them sceptical of the value of existing institutions, even where they provide stable, decent rule. The book instead provides a realist account of the authority of liberal democratic rule focused on impersonal rule and regulated democratic competition. It uses groundbreaking work in political economy to explain how, at least under reasonably favourable conditions, these two mechanisms can be expected to combine to generate a growing surplus whose fruits will be made widely available. The prosperity and protection provided by liberal democratic rule to most of those it governs forms the basis of its authority, even though the hierarchies and exclusions that remain leave liberal democratic societies a long way from justice. Understanding liberal democratic authority in this way allows us to reassess challenges to it. Protest and resistance must accept impersonal rule and regulated democratic competition. While anger, and even violence, may then be acceptable and even appropriate, even peaceful attempts to remove the winners of democratic elections must be condemned. (shrink)

Claims about what justice “requires” and the “requirements” of justice are pervasive in political philosophy. However, there is a highly significant ambiguity in such claims that appears to have gone unnoticed. Such claims may pick out either one of two categorically distinct and noncoextensive kinds of requirement that we call 1) requirements-as-necessary-conditions for justice and 2) requirements-as-demands of justice. This is an especially compelling instance of an ambiguity that John Broome has famously observed in the context of claims about other (...) requirements (notably the requirements of rationality and morality). But it appears to have been overlooked by political philosophers in the case of claims about the requirements of justice. The ambiguity is highly significant inasmuch as failing to notice it is liable to distort our normative thinking about politics and make us vulnerable to certain kinds of normatively consequential errors: both mistakenly drawing inferences about what justice demands of us from claims that certain states or societies are not just; and mistakenly drawing inferences about what states or societies are or would be just from claims that justice does not demand of states or societies that they do certain things. Paying greater attention to the distinction between these two different kinds of requirements and the ways in which they come apart is helpful, not merely in avoiding these distortions and errors, but also in resolving, or at least clarifying, a number of other notoriously murky meta-normative debates, especially various important debates about realism and idealism in political philosophy. (shrink)

EU co-legislators recently approved the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which establishes a uniform carbon price on both EU and imported products, in ETS covered sectors. This violates the CBDR-RC principle. Yet, CBAM advocates claim that the resulting unfair mitigation can be offset by scaling up climate finance, to the benefit of poorer countries. I argue that the CBAM’s unfairness is compounded by previous climate injustice, as avoidable emissions by developed countries pushed the climate crisis to the point where (...) fair mitigation is no longer viable. This implies that a disadvantage within the distributive sphere of emissions abatement cannot be counterbalanced by additional advantages within the distributive sphere of climate finance. (shrink)

Construed as a theory of justice, relational egalitarianism says that justice requires that people relate as equals. Construed as a theory of what makes democracy valuable, it says that democracy is a necessary, or constituent, part of the value of relating as equals. Typically, relational egalitarians want their theory to provide both an account of what justice requires and an account of what makes democracy valuable. We argue that relational egalitarians with this dual ambition face the justice-democracy dilemma: Understanding social (...) relations in such a way that renders relational egalitarianism plausible as an answer to what makes democracy valuable comes at the price of understanding social relations in a way that makes it less plausible as a theory of justice, and vice versa. We also argue that there is no easy way out of the dilemma and that relational egalitarians, who want relational equality to provide both accounts mentioned, may simply have to set their ambitions lower on behalf of relational equality. (shrink)

Relational egalitarianism holds that people should live together as equals. We argue against the received wisdom amongst both friends and foes of relational egalitarianism that it fails to provide a theory of intergenerational justice. Instead, we argue that relational egalitarianism is concerned with social equality amongst future contemporaries, and that this commitment gives rise to duties of justice for current generations that can be grounded in the idea of generational overlap. In doing so, we argue that that the scope of (...) relational egalitarian concerns extends beyond generations amongst whom social relations exist. (shrink)

Though Mathias Risse and Gabriel Wollner’s _On Trade Justice_ admirably incorporates the history of European philosophy and U.S. government, their otherwise reasonable proposals rest on dubious grounds. The book derives both much of its appeal, and its primary vulnerability, from a cluster of central terms that are situated precariously at the intersection of metaphors and concepts, or what Lakoff and Johnson call “metaphorical concepts.” In this article, I explore the three most important such terms, as featured in the following paraphrase (...) of theirs: “_Trade_ is an _embedded ground_ of justice.” For each italicized term, I conclude, Risse and Wollner vacil-late between its most conceptual and metaphorical meanings, thereby attempting to (a) stretch “trade” to identify prehistoric exchange with global capitalism, so as to (b) rebrand the contextual “ground” of this universal activity as a foundation, even though (c) foundations “embedded” in other foundations simply reduce to their lowest common denominator. The latter, in this case, is global capitalism, the most immoral practices of which they are thereby pressured to defend, including temporary forms of the very exploitation that they so persuasively reconceive and otherwise condemn. (shrink)

The income gap between women and men expands with age, culminating in a gender pension gap in old age that is much larger than pay gaps earlier in life. In this article, I question two attempts to justify gender pension gaps. One insists that lower financial contribution justifies women's lower overall pensions. The second states that women must receive less monthly because they live longer. I argue that neither of these reasons is fair in a gender-unjust world. Rather than justifying (...) pension gaps, female longevity is an opportunity to promote gender justice: by subsidizing longer lives, old-age redistribution attenuates lifetime gender inequality. In the case of retirement pensions, the use of age to promote gender equality may be preferable to explicit gender differentiation. There is, then, a feminist case for old-age redistribution. (shrink)

This article explores and evaluates recent conceptual and theoretical developments in the literature on climate justice. Initially shaped by the first generation of IPCC reports and rooted in applied ethics, early climate justice debates framed the climate crisis mainly as a mitigation issue, exacerbated by global and intergenerational collective action dilemmas, requiring ethical principles for resolution. However, with increasingly dire climate forecasts and the policy inertia of the past three decades, climate justice theories have shifted toward a political economy-centered approach. (...) This shift reframes the issue from simply setting just emissions standards to addressing questions of productive justice within a historically situated global energy regime. The article concludes by addressing two critical challenges for production- focused climate justice theories: how to implement radical political action and how to reconceptualize our normative relationship with future generations. (shrink)

This paper criticises the two prominent interpretations of utopianism in Plato's Republic. The traditional argues that it is mere utopianism, seriously proposing that Kallipolis is, in fact, the ideal city. The ironic argues that the Republic is a critique of the ability for reason to reconstruct human nature and is, therefore, a dire warning against utopian thinking in politics. I oppose these two interpretations and instead argue that the Republic implies a paradoxical necessity in the nature of utopianism: The ideal (...) cannot be theorised without itself being conditioned by the politics of theorising, and yet the politics of theorising is immanently motivated by the ideal. I locate this seemingly antonymic dynamic within the education of the learner/citizen in the Republic. Although this is centred on the notion of self-governance, it cannot be imposed and instead depends on the philosophical development of one's soul that is inextricably linked to justice in the city. Therefore, the utopianism of the Republic ought to be thought of as dialectical, being simultaneously situated and yet normatively transcending. (shrink)

This groundbreaking book revisits the current model for preventing and controlling violent radicalisation and extremism. It proposes a new, evidence-based model, using restorative justice and positive psychology. Using data collected through six international projects and pilots in several countries from 2017 to 2023, it presents the results of these pilots and recommends best practices that adopt successful and positive models for the prevention and control of extremist and hate attitudes. This book speaks to researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and human rights campaigners (...) from around the world looking for a new approach that can better serve harmed parties, their families, and communities. (shrink)

This paper is about why voluntary associations, such as churches, unions and political parties, are subject to natural justice requirements in common law: in other words, why they are required to treat their members fairly. These requirements are typically imposed (under the name of procedural fairness) by public law on exercises of state authority, but voluntary associations do not exercise state authority. Voluntary associations are set up in private law, as structures of property and contract, but property and contract law (...) do not ordinarily require rights to be exercised in accordance with natural justice. What is needed is an account which locates voluntary associations within private law while adverting to what they have in common with the state: that they make and apply rules to facilitate human interaction. I propose such an account, drawing on an idea from Lon Fuller. Natural justice requirements on voluntary associations are grounded in the rule of law. (shrink)

This paper develops the concept of epistemic apprenticeship as a response to failures among privileged social actors to perceive the knowledge bases of unjustly marginalised groups as sources of valuable insight. Inspired by Elizabeth Spelman’s reflections on apprenticeship and intersectional feminism, an epistemic apprenticeship represents an obverse form of apprenticeship; one in which socially privileged knowers become apprentices to those who do not enjoy equivalent power and privilege. This paper critiques and extends Spelman’s account of apprenticeship by focussing on how (...) the institutional sedimentation of dominant social imaginaries works against the volitional and virtuous practice of apprenticeship, and by exploring what a commitment to epistemic apprenticeship demands at the level of institutional practice. As part of this discussion, I scrutinise the conditions under which institutionalised apprenticeships may fall short of their meliorative potential, and may obstruct rather than aid efforts to achieve greater epistemic justice. (shrink)

Pogge’s 2006 framework of global justice can be adapted for individual agents or collective unilateral donations in the same way Singer’s framework has been. I do so by amending Pogge’s institutional principles for international human rights NGOs and by adding two further principles to address challenges that arise when his framework is applied. This adapted framework enjoins donors to make principled philanthropic decisions that prioritize existing and near-term suffering, while also rectifying their part in causing this suffering. It makes Pogge’s (...) negative duty account easier to implement than his previous proposal, and provides well-off individuals with an alternative to Effective Altruism. (shrink)

No-connection theories and special connection global justice theories attempt to explain our global responsibilities. No-connection theories, while universal are less than motivating. Special-connection theories, while motivating, have been unable to fully ground global responsibilities. “Bootstrapping” theories like those of Thomas Donahue-Ochoa or Shannon Vallor are both universal and motivating. Donahue-Ochoa argues that systemic injustice reduces everyone’s freedom. Vallor argues that virtues have global scope given how they are grounded. Both have flaws. I propose “absolute resistance theory.” I claim if we (...) cannot resist systemic injustice locally without global resistance, we have global responsibilities to resist injustice stemming from proximate relationships. (shrink)

Wie sollen individuelle, miteinander konkurrierende Ansprüche gegeneinander abgewogen werden? Die gerechtigkeitstheoretischen Herausforderungen wachsen, wenn künftige Personen mit einbezogen werden. Mit dem Schritt von rein intra- zu intergenerationeller Gerechtigkeit sind die Ansprüche nicht mehr nur im Raum, sondern auch in der Zeit verteilt. Dieser Beitrag widmet sich der Frage, auf welche Weise die so verteilten Ansprüche zusammengeführt werden sollen. Dazu wird zwischen einer synchronen und einer diachronen Gerechtigkeitskonzeption unterschieden. Erstere sieht die zeitliche Dimension als Erweiterung der räumlichen: Zunächst setzt sie jene (...) Ansprüche, die zu einem gegebenen Zeitpunkt innerhalb einer Generation existieren, zueinander in Beziehung. Die so zusammengeführten generationellen Ansprüche werden anschließend entlang der Zeit gegeneinander abgewogen. Letztere hingegen verwirft die Generation als relevante Gruppe, um die Bedürfnisse des Individuums zu vertreten. Stattdessen basiert sie auf der Idee transgenerationeller Gemeinschaften. Sie stellt individuelle Ansprüche zunächst innerhalb der jeweiligen, zeitlich ausgedehnten Gemeinschaft einander gegenüber. Anschließend setzt sie dann diese Gemeinschaften zueinander in Beziehung. Bestehende Theorien generationenübergreifender Gerechtigkeit verfolgen dabei zumeist eine Extensionsstrategie: Sie erweitern eine bestehende intragenerationelle Theorie um die zeitliche Dimension hin zur Intergenerationalität. Dies entspricht einer synchronen Konzeption, die jedoch oftmals nichts expliziert wird. Demgegenüber entwickelt der Beitrag zwei Argumente für die diachrone Alternative. Konzentrieren wir uns weniger auf Forderungen ganzer Generationen, sondern auf Bedürfnisse künftiger Mitglieder unserer transgenerationellen Gemeinschaften, so werden wir, erstens, der motivationalen Herausforderung besser gerecht werden. Sie besteht in der Beantwortung der Frage, warum wir im heutigen Handeln überhaupt Raum für nachfolgende Interessen schaffen sollten. Innerhalb transgenerationeller Gemeinschaften stehen diese nachfolgenden Interessen jedoch nicht in Isolation, sondern sind durch Interaktion innerhalb der Gemeinschaft geprägt und erlauben uns damit, unsere eigenen Interessen über das eigene Leben hinaus zu verwirklichen. Zweitens können wir so auch der epistemischen Herausforderung begegnen. Diese stellt sich angesichts der Frage, worin eigentlich die nachfolgenden Interessen bestehen. Greifen wir sie nicht als kollektive Wünsche ganzer Generationen auf, sondern als die Pläne und Projekte künftiger Mitglieder unserer Gemeinschaft, so wird es leichter sein, vom Heute auf die Zukunft und ihre Bedürfnisse zu schließen. Die Forderung, künftige Ansprüche im heutigen Handeln zu berücksichtigen, wirft die Frage nach dem ‚Warum‘ und die nach dem ‚Wie‘ auf. Beiden kann eine diachrone Konzeption intergenerationeller Gerechtigkeit eher begegnen. (shrink)

Medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems are value-laden technologies that can simultaneously encourage and discourage conflicting values that may all be relevant for the pursuit of justice. I argue that the predominant theory of healthcare justice, the Rawls-inspired approach of Norman Daniels, neither adequately acknowledges such conflicts nor explains if and how they can resolved. By juxtaposing Daniels’s theory of healthcare justice with Axel Honneth’s and Nancy Fraser’s respective theories of justice, I draw attention to one such conflict. Medical AI may (...) improve the distribution of opportunity qua health while simultaneously mis-recognizing patients and thereby reducing their self-respect. I argue that justly resolving this conflict will at times require greater inclusion of those mis-recognized in deliberation about medical AI, and consider what such inclusion may entail. (shrink)

Parents appear to dominate their children in ways they cannot with other adults. While it might seem unavoidable, this issue raises important questions about whether children are unfree under parental authority. Republican theories of freedom, such as Philip Pettit’s influential account, look especially vulnerable. He claims that we are free only if non-dominated and so not under the arbitrary interference by others. Domination is a threat to freedom that republican freedom opposes for all. However, non-domination seems impossible to avoid for (...) everyone, most notably children, which is broadly accepted. If so, it is unclear why domination is permissible for some and not others if it is an evil for all to avoid. In this article, I argue that parental authority need not entail domination where it is subject to legitimacy constraints drawing on Pettit’s work on freedom and criminal justice that might also be endorsed by non-republicans. Republican children can enjoy non-domination from the cradle to the grave and this reveals how parental authority need not render children unfree for non-republicans as well. (shrink)

Der Sammelband beleuchtet die vielfältigen Facetten von Solidarität in einer digital vernetzten und krisengeprägten Welt. Er untersucht, wie neue Technologien und soziale Netzwerke Solidaritätspraktiken verändern und welche Potentiale und Herausforderungen sich daraus ergeben. Durch die Verknüpfungen von Traditionen der protestantischen Ethik, der Befreiungstheologie und Black Theology mit intersektional-feministischen Theorien zeigt der Sammelband auf, welche Rolle Solidarität in emanzipatorischen Bewegungen spielt und wie diese aktuelle Definitionen informieren können. Ziel ist es, die Debatte um Solidarität anzuregen sowie neue Impulse für theologisch-ethische und (...) soziale Diskurse zu setzen. (shrink)

Defenses of political obligation—the pro tanto obligation to obey the law because the state commands it—often operate at or near the level of ideal theory. Critics, though, increasingly question that approach’s relevance for the imperfect states that exist. This article develops a lesser evil framework to evaluate political obligation with several advantages over more ideal approaches: (1) avoids the questionable assumption that some actual states are reasonably just, (2) recognizes that context matters for political obligation, (3) captures the complicity involved (...) in obeying the state, and (4) identifies a basis—varying intuitions on lesser evil justifications—to distinguish philosophical anarchism from conceptions of political obligation without the former collapsing into the latter. We remain agnostic on whether this framework establishes political obligation to any state but argue that it offers a compelling account of the moral dilemma of obeying the state under nonideal conditions. (shrink)

Rawls famously argues that the parties in the original position would agree upon the two principles of justice. Among other things, these principles guarantee equal political liberty—that is, democracy—as a requirement of justice. We argue on the contrary that the parties have reason to reject this requirement. As we show, by Rawls’ own lights, the parties would be greatly concerned to mitigate existential risk. But it is doubtful whether democracy always minimizes such risk. Indeed, no one currently knows which political (...) systems would. Consequently, the parties—and we ourselves—have reason to reject democracy as a requirement of justice in favor of political experimentalism, a general approach to political justice which rules in at least some non-democratic political systems which might minimize existential risk. (shrink)

Miten ajattelu oikeuksista pohjautuu antiikin ja varhaisen keskiajan filosofiaan ja yhteis­kunnalliseen kehitykseen? Mitä tarkoittaa, että jollakulla on oikeus johonkin, ja kenellä oikeuksia voi olla? Entä mihin universaalit ihmisoikeudet perustuvat? Julkisuudessa ja politiikassa puhutaan yhä useammin oikeuksista. Turvapaikanhakijoiden kohtelusta keskusteltaessa esiin nostetaan etenkin ihmisoikeudet. Huoli ilmaston­muutoksesta on kiihdyttänyt pohdintaa eläinten ja luonnonympäristön oikeuksista. Kiivasta väittelyä synnyttää myös sanan­vapauden ja vihapuheen rajoittamisen suhde. Mitä oikeudet ovat? -teoksessa oikeuden käsitettä ja kehitystä pohtivat niin oikeus­tieteilijät kuin filosofitkin. Se on ensimmäinen suomenkielinen kirja, jossa näiden (...) kahden tieteenalan edustajat keskustelevat oikeuksista saman pöydän ääressä. Miten ajattelu oikeuksista pohjautuu antiikin ja varhaisen keskiajan filosofiaan ja yhteis­kunnalliseen kehitykseen? Mitä tarkoittaa, että jollakulla on oikeus johonkin, ja kenellä oikeuksia voi olla? Entä mihin universaalit ihmisoikeudet perustuvat? Teoksessa pureudutaan muun muassa näihin kysymyksiin niin juridisesta kuin filosofisestakin näkö­kulmasta. Monet luvuista muodostavat parin, jotka argumentoivat toisiaan vastaan. Avoimella ja väittelyyn kannustavalla otteellaan teos kutsuu lukijankin mukaan keskusteluun oikeuksista. (shrink)

Karl Widerquist is one of the world’s leading theorists and proponents of Universal Basic Income (UBI). His argument for UBI, however, is only one important cornerstone of his broader theory of justice and freedom. This theory entails a critical reassessment of the justification and proper scope of property rights. This is the task of The Problem of Property, a nifty little book which originates in previously unpublished parts of his doctoral thesis—the same thesis that formed the foundation of his Independence, (...) Propertylessness, and Basic Income: Freedom as the Power to Say No (2013, New York: Palgrave MacMillan). The current book is thus a welcome companion piece to that magnum opus. At the same time, The Problem of Property, thanks to its brevity and clarity, is a decent standalone introduction to Widerquist’s philosophy. While some fans of his previous works might be disappointed that UBI takes an unexpected backseat, the book’s narrow critical focus on the normative justifications of property rights makes it a goldmine for political philosophers. Even Lockean right-libertarians, his ostensible main targets, should find its freedom-based arguments familiar and easy to grasp, even if they may be puzzled by some of the radical conclusions that he draws from them. (shrink)

The notion of equality attracts both proponents and critics of nonmonogamy. Inequality is a widely discussed objection to nonmonogamy. Simultaneously, equality is highlighted as a core value in ethical nonmonogamy. The notions of equality and inequality in these debates have not been clearly conceptualized. In order to propose a conception of egalitarian nonmonogamy, it is important to first understand possible inequalities within it. This paper establishes a clearer and in-depth understanding of inequalities in nonmonogamy by categorizing inequalities in traditional polygamy (...) into different kinds. I argue that these inequalities are generally unjust. Although these inequalities are common in traditional polygamy, the objection that polygamy—as a type of marriage—is inherently unequal and unjust is not a convincing argument. By contrast, not all kinds of equality—such as equal love or equal number of partners—are morally significant. I conclude this paper by providing some groundwork for future research on egalitarian nonmonogamy. (shrink)

This chapter explores the conceptual relation of facts about racial injustice to two key aspects of Rawls’s ideal theory. First, it explains why Rawls excludes race from his representation of a well-ordered society and why he believes this exclusion does not mean that justice as fairness cannot support racial justice. Second, it considers three recent accounts of the justificatory role of facts about racial injustice in justice as fairness, focusing on the methods of the Original Position and Reflective Equilibrium. It (...) concludes with a reinterpretation of the method of Reflective Equilibrium that shows why it provides a promising pathway for showcasing the explicit role of facts about racial realities in ideal theory. Namely, their consideration can add justification to the idea of justice as fairness. (shrink)

The Human Agenda is the first Special Edition of The Cambridge Journal of Law, Politics, and Art (CJLPA), an interdisciplinary journal founded at the University of Cambridge. Focused on the unique intersections of law, politics and art in the context of human rights, contributors to the Special Edition include David Baragwanath, Luis Moreno Ocampo, Nadia Murad, Nancy Hollander, Andrew Clapham, Vladimir Osechkin, Mansour al-Omari, and many others. A full table of contents is available through the publication's own page.

The text—drawing inspiration from the tale of the three waves in Plato᾿s Republic—focuses on the final journey of Odysseus, foretold by Homer’s Teiresias in the Odyssey. This journey—undertaken alone with an oar on his shoulder to a land where people know nothing of the sea—represents a stage in the path of moral maturation, essential for achieving a serene old age, concluded with a gentle death among happy people, and a fulfilled life. It symbolizes the path to a confrontation with something (...) beyond ordinary experience. Plato points to the need for a similar journey, as in the Allegory of the Cave, where the most important lessons are learned not from others but through individual effort, by turning away from what we know in everyday life. At the end of his final journey, Odysseus is to face the question of whether the oar he carries, symbolizing the hardships of his journey back from Troy to Ithaca, is in fact a winnowing fan—a farming tool used to separate the grain from the chaff. The final journey is essential to—using Plato’s language—achieving inner harmony, which is the basis of justice, a virtue Odysseus appears not to have fully attained before this journey. (shrink)

Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.

Limitarianism holds that there is an upper limit to how many resources, such as wealth and income, people can permissibly have. In this article, I examine the conceptual structure of limitarianism. I focus on the upper limit and the idea that resources above the limit are ‘excess resources’. I distinguish two possible limitarian views about such resources: (i) that excess resources have zero moral value for the holder; and (ii) that excess resources do have moral value for the holder but (...) that their claim to such resources is outweighed by other normative concerns. Moreover, I argue that, depending on the values limitarianism seeks to promote, limitarians should care about the number of people with excess resources or the total amount of excess resources (or both), that they can adopt redistributive measures and/or predistributive measures, and that some versions of limitarianism should take into account the distribution of risk among those above the riches line. (shrink)

The Non-Identity Problem (NIP) has been recognized as a hindrance in justifying compensation for historical injustice. Since NIP applies to individuals, an attractive way of trying to remove the obstacle is by shifting the focus from the allegedly harmed individuals to the harmed group. However, critical examination of this move shows that (a) there are groups—most conspicuously African Americans—who were _created_ by the unjust wrongs for which compensation is now claimed and hence fall under the same category as any wrongful (...) life case on the individual level, and (b) even when the group already existed when the wrongs were perpetrated, with the long passage of time it changed its identity in the narrative sense, which means that its contemporary members are attached to it as it is defined today but not as it was when the wrong was done. The paper suggests, therefore, that the Group Non-Identity Problem (GNIP) is the parallel impediment to that of NIP in doing historical justice to social groups which were maltreated in the past. (shrink)

This Correspondence argues in response to Coolsaet et al. (2024) that there is an important role to play for stance-independent justice discussions that are not tied to specific social, political or critical perspectives. These can be valuable for climate research audiences, but also as a basis upon which to critically debate and research injustices.

This paper addresses the question of whether vegan activists should cater to their audience by framing their message according to the pre-existing values of their interlocutors. Specifically, I focus on deliberative activism, which is based on speech and exchanges with the audience. I propose that message framing can lead to a neglect of animal suffering in favor of focusing on less contentious motives for veganism, such as environmental or health benefits. I claim that neglecting the issue of animal suffering can (...) have several problematic consequences. Concretely, I argue that message framing can: (1) lead to the objectification of animals, treating them as mere means to other ends (such as environmental and health benefits); (2) imply a denial of their personhood; (3) perpetuate their status as property; (4) enable future harm to animals; and (5) create a hierarchy of moral worth among different animal species. For these reasons, I suggest that message framing is less appealing than it initially seems. (shrink)

In a common, pejorative sense of it, ideology consists in attitudes whose presence contributes to sustaining, by making them seem legitimate, social orders that are problematic. An important way a social order can be problematic concerns the prospects for well-being facing the people living in it. It can make some people wind up worse off than they could and should be. They have “real interests” that are not properly served by the social order, and the interests aligned with it are (...) in fact “false,” merely “apparent,” or “distorted.” Ideology critique consists in part in noting the existence of such different interests, and in challenging the latter to facilitate the fulfillment of the former. This picture of ideology critique implies that ideology thwarts well-being. This paper aims to clarify, develop, and vindicate this picture. It argues that ideology critique should indeed draw (inter alia) on prudential considerations, and that a specifically objectivist view of well-being would be fitting. The fruitfulness of this approach is shown by exploring the specific case of the critique of working practices in contemporary capitalism. (shrink)

In banning religious symbols for civil servants in a position of authority, Québec's laicity law disproportionately burdens religious minorities. Nevertheless, politicians seem to somehow avoid this problem, and the law is largely supported by the population. This insensibility to religious discrimination calls for an explanation. I argue that part of the explanation for this unequal treatment of religion in secular society lies in active religious ignorance. Drawing a parallel from how white ignorance functions to protect racial inequalities, I argue that (...) a kind of active ignorance in the religious domain – that I name post-Christendom ignorance – makes it difficult to comprehend alternative understandings of religious experience and allows the majority to deny its religious positionality. Applying this framework, I criticize Québec's laicity law for wrongfully relying on inadequate hermeneutical resources about religion. Further, the failure to see that targeting only religious symbols worn by individuals is discriminatory is the result of the epistemic vice of closed-mindedness. This article aims to show how religious persons in secular society can suffer hermeneutical wrongs because of their religious identity, and it aims to show that this injustice in the epistemic domain can help explain the unequal treatment of religious minorities while providing grounds for criticism. (shrink)

Can people alive now have duties to future generations, the unborn millions? If so, what do we owe them? What does “justice” mean in an intergenerational context, both between people who will coexist at some point, and between generations that will never overlap? -/- In this book, Axel Gosseries provides a forensic examination of these issues, comparing and analyzing various views about what we owe our successors. He discusses links between justice and sustainability, and looks at the implications of the (...) fact that our successors’ preferences are heavily influenced by what we will actually leave them and by the education they receive. He also points to how these theoretical considerations apply to real-life issues, ranging from pension reform and Brexit to biodiversity and the climate crisis. He ends by outlining how intergenerational considerations may translate into institutional design. -/- Anyone grappling with the dilemmas of our obligations to the future, from students and scholars to policy makers and active citizens, will find this an invaluable theoretical and practical guide to this moral and political minefield. (shrink)

Harmony (he 和, also xie 諧, tiao 調, mu 睦) undoubtedly belongs to the important topoi of Confucian socio-political thinking. Nevertheless, its ranking in the normative vocabulary of Confucian texts is not uniform. While it is not a conspicuous issue in the Mengzi, in the Xunzi he frequently appears as a main concept. I suppose that this difference is not without significance. Certainly, a harmonious society is a shared goal of these two Confucian thinkers. But, while for Mengzi (Mencius) it (...) is probably a by-product of the spontaneous work of the ‘good’ impulses of the human being, provided they are ‘extended’ and allowed to develop freely, Xunzi is much more concerned with achieving harmony as a difficult and constructive political activity aimed at establishing a ‘just’ society. This is certainly due to Xunzi’s sceptical anthropology (or, better, to the sceptical part of his anthropology), which has to take into account that human beings are not by natural inclination on the side of order. In what follows, I will outline Xunzi’s conception of a just society in order to show that justice, not harmony, is the fundamental category of his political philosophy. -/- . (shrink)

This is an open access book. Modern society is characterized by the fact of contingency, uncertainty, and ambiguity. The purpose of this book is to transform this phenomenal fact into a hopeful norm. As a clue, the book examines the concept of dignity and looks forward to a new definition. So far, the concept of dignity has been peripheral to the concerns of liberal social sciences. This book uses the concept of dignity as a source of light to illuminate the (...) fundamental critique of liberal social sciences and philosophy. Can the theory of justice or discourse ethics truly realize the well-defined society it envisions in a fundamentally contingent, uncertain, and ambiguous situation? Can societies be inclusive of minorities relegated to the periphery with their dignity undermined? Can we resist the temptation to construct huge hierarchical stairs, forcing individuals to place themselves on one of its steps, and thus lining up different and diverse entities in a long sequence, and eventually bringing about totalitarianism? This book has a three-level telescopic structure. At the very front, there is a scope of reexaming the political liberalism in the light of dignity. Behind it is a scope of reconstructing a theory of justice in modern society. Further behind it, there is a scope encompassing reflection on the methodology of liberal social sciences and philosophy. We leave it to the reader's imagination as to which scope to read this book through, and what image will emerge from the three scopes taken together. It is our hope that this book helps readers envision as a "realistic utopia" a society in which "no one is left behind," including wounded little birds. (shrink)

I argue that the blameworthy deserve to suffer in that they deserve to feel guilt, which is the unpleasant experience of appreciating one’s apparent culpability for having done wrong. I argue that the blameworthy deserve to feel guilt because they owe it to those whom they’ve culpably wronged to (a) hold themselves accountable, (b) manifest the proper regard for those whom they’ve wronged, and (c) appreciate their culpability for, and the moral significance of, their wrongdoing. And I argue that the (...) blameworthy must feel guilt to satisfy a–c. What’s more, I argue that, in thinking about whether the blameworthy deserve to feel guilt, we need to compare the world in which the blameworthy feel guilt to the world in which the non-blameworthy feel guilt, for, as I argue, it’s insufficient to compare only the world in which the blameworthy feel guilt to the world in which the blameworthy don’t feel guilt. (shrink)

Plato's _Republic_ divided subsequent study of justice in two, as a virtue of people and of institutions. Here, the start of a reunification is attempted. Justice is first understood personally as the virtuous mean between arrogance and servility, where just people properly respect themselves and others. Because justice requires that like cases be treated alike and self-respect is a special instance of respect generally, justice requires a single standard for self and others. In understanding justice in terms of respect, structural (...) analogies become apparent between “recognition” and “appraisal” respect, on the one hand, and Rawls' two principles of justice on the other. The present view is then compared to “social egalitarian” theories of justice and the essay concludes with a discussion of how mercy is related to justice and an explanation of why just people always look for reasons to mitigate blame and punishment but never to aggravate them. (shrink)