The Heteronomous University and the Question of Social Justice: In Search of a New Social Contract

Author(s):  
Daniel Schugurensky
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Ikkos

According to Beauchamp & Childress (2001) the fundamental principles of biomedical ethics include ‘justice'. But how do we approach ‘justice'? Justice may be thought of in relation to an individual or society. An individual may be just or unjust. Justice in society may be thought of as ‘retributive justice’ (fair punishment), ‘civil justice’ (fair recompense), ‘distributive justice’ (fair shares) or ‘social justice’ (a fair social contract for citizens of a society).


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-341
Author(s):  
David Miller

Virtually everyone believes that we have a duty to rescue fellow human-beings from serious danger when we can do so at small cost to ourselves – and this often forms the starting point for arguments in moral and political philosophy on topics such as global poverty, state legitimacy, refugees, and the donation of body parts. But how are we to explain this duty, and within what limits does it apply? It cannot be subsumed under a wider consequentialist requirement to prevent harm. Nor can it be understood as a duty of social justice that citizens owe to one another under a social contract for mutual protection. Instead it is a sui generis duty of justice that arises from the direct physical encounter between rescuer and victim, and is accordingly limited in scope. However the simplicity of the duty evaporates when multiple potential rescuers are present. Here responsibility lies with the collective as a whole until it is assigned by a fair procedure to individual members. Each individual is required as a matter of justice to discharge that share, but not more, though in the case that others do not comply, he will have a reason, and sometimes a humanitarian duty, to take up the slack.


2020 ◽  
pp. 172-182
Author(s):  
Yael Tamir

This chapter unfolds the basis of a new social contract that sets out innovative ways of redistributing risks and opportunities. It also discusses how “committed nationalism” — the nationalism of mutual responsibility that places fellow nationals at the top of one's social priorities — may help to rebuild social solidarity. The chapter then turns to talk about the alliance of conservatives and social democrats, rallying around the nation-state and looking to bring the elites back home in the name of both nationalism and social justice. It demonstrates how the political balance tilted in the direction of the nationalism of the vulnerable rather than in the direction of the nationalism of the affluent. As we enter the age of a new and caring nationalism, the chapter explains four moves that must be taken to tame the new nationalism and make it more liberal and tolerant. Finally, the chapter reviews the significance of reviving the sense of social and political optimism and collective pride that allows individuals and societies to envision a better future for themselves and for the coming generations.


Author(s):  
Alan Ryan

This chapter examines the impact of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice on the liberal audience that took it up. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls offers a defense of civil disobedience that would make politically motivated disobedience a much more acceptable part of our political life than either the U.S. Supreme Court or the English judiciary seems likely to contemplate. Furthermore, his views about the subservience of economic institutions to “social justice” place him firmly on one side of what is currently the most fiercely contested dividing line in politics in Britain today. The chapter also considers Rawls's use of the theory of the social contract to support his arguments; his principle of “the priority of liberty”; and his “difference principle.” It asserts that Rawls is safe from those critics who maintain that what purports to be a defense of liberalism actually collapses into a wholesale collectivism.


Bioethics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander C L Holden ◽  
Carlos R Quiñonez

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 331-350
Author(s):  
Girijesh Pant

The continuation of the uprising in the Arab world beyond the third year, despite a regime change, can be explained by locating it within the structural crisis of a neoliberal regime. The objective conditions of exclusion created a unique sense of power in being powerless, making it possible for diverse stakeholders to define a collective cause. This has been further reinforced by a sense of community fostered by electronic communication across the countries of the region and beyond. Thus, the street protests have garnered unprecedented support, giving it a global dimension. Ironically, the solidarity of the collective cause lost its cohesion in transforming itself into an institution. The attempt to construct a sectarian polity is failing due to massive opposition. Clearly, any attempt to impose a framework that does not have a representative character and which does not reflect popular aspirations in terms of a holistic social contract is not going to be acceptable to the protestors. Thus, the boundaries of public protest are expanding and expressions are changing but the sentiments are the same; it continues to be a struggle for inclusion, social justice and dignity.


Author(s):  
Anne W. Rawls ◽  
Jason Turowetz

AbstractFrom his 1940–1942 studies of Race, through his 1967 study of an “inter-sexed” person called Agnes, Garfinkel’s research was always politically engaged. When Garfinkel was Parsons’ PhD student at Harvard (1946–1952) and later during a period of collaboration with Parsons (1958–1964), both theorized culture as a domain of social interaction independent from social structure and resting on its own implicit social contract. This conception of culture grounded their respective “voluntaristic” and “reciprocity” based approaches to specifying assembly processes for making social categories in a way that put the empirical assembly of categories under a microscope and made social justice a scientific concern. Garfinkel emphasized the importance of social contract aspects of Parsons’ theory – adapted from Durkheim – and with his studies in ethnomethodology, planned to contribute an empirical foundation for aspects of Parsons’ position that were criticized for their abstraction. Nevertheless, important differences remained. Parsons’ model required assimilation and consensus, thus inadvertently enforcing existing inequalities. Garfinkel, by contrast, was deeply concerned with “structural problems” like inequality, and treated assimilationist positions as scientifically and ethically unsound. His research documented reciprocity as a pre-requisite for successful interaction, while treating “troubles” generated by inequality as an important key to understanding social order writ large.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document