scholarly journals The Separateness of Persons: A Moral Basis for a Public Justification Requirement

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-505
Author(s):  
Jason Tyndal
2020 ◽  
pp. 121-124
Author(s):  
G.I. Khoshimova
Keyword(s):  

В данной статье описывается история военной культуры как духовно-нравственная основа современной армии Узбекистана. Раскрывается роль военной культуры и традиций в воспитании военнослужащих в духе патриотизма.


Author(s):  
Christie Hartley

This chapter discusses the concern that exclusive accounts of public reason threaten or undermine the integrity of some religiously oriented citizens in democratic societies. It discusses various notions of integrity that might be claimed to ground such a concern. It is argued that purely formal accounts of integrity that do not distinguish between the integrity of reasonable and unreasonable persons, as specified within political liberalism, cannot underwrite integrity challenges that should concern political liberals. It is further argued that if the inquiry is limited to conceptions of integrity that distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable persons, the supposed burdens persons of faith face are not burdens different from those that all citizens face equally. It is claimed the concern is best understood as a challenge to the account of public justification and the account of public reason as a moral ideal.


Author(s):  
Christie Hartley

This chapter develops the idea of public reason based on the shared reasons account of public justification. It is argued that the moral foundation for political liberalism delimits a narrow scope for the idea of public reason, such that public reasons are required only for matters of constitutional essentials and basic justice. It is also argued that where public reason applies, persons as citizens have a moral duty to never appeal to their comprehensive doctrines when engaging in public reasoning. Hence, an exclusive account of public reason is vindicated. Finally, we respond to various potential objections to our view, such as the claim that the shared reasons view requires identical reasoning and the claim that public reason is interderminate or inconclusive.


Author(s):  
Rainer Forst

This chapter compares two Enlightenment theories of religious toleration: the theories of Pierre Bayle and Immanuel Kant. Both Bayle and Kant argued for an autonomous conception of morality as the ground of reciprocal and universal toleration, but they differed in the ways in which they thought of the relation between faith and reason. The chapter discusses how in that latter regard, a Baylean perspective is superior to a Kantian one, whereas it concludes that the Kantian approach has a better way to connect morality and a politics of public justification when it comes to think about a political regime of toleration.


Author(s):  
T. M. Scanlon

Equality of opportunity requires that individuals should be selected for positions of advantage on the basis of relevant qualifications and that the ability to acquire these qualifications should not depend on the economic status of a person’s family. This chapter offers an institutional account of the moral basis of the first of these requirements. This account presupposes that positions of advantage are justified by the benefits they produce when they are held by individuals with the relevant abilities. The notion of ability relevant to considerations of procedural fairness therefore depends on the aims that justify the institution in question and on the way it is organized to promote these aims. The chapter relates this idea of fairness to the ideas of equal concern and non-discrimination and discusses the implications of procedural fairness for affirmative action.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 224-230
Author(s):  
Roy Kreitner

Abstract This review of Peter Benson’s Justice in Transactions focuses on the book’s attempt to combine the juridical vision of contract with contract’s social role in providing a coherent framework for market relations. The combination is challenging because the juridical conception ignores particular interests, needs, purposes, and preferences of contracting parties, while the market is precisely a system for satisfying needs or obtaining substantive satisfactions. The review suggests that Benson’s treatment of the combination is open to two readings: one reading claims that contract as we know it actually succeeds in achieving public justification; the other reading claims that contract could potentially be a justified institution, but only if the background regime of rights was transformed so that juridical and substantive equality were more closely aligned.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-134
Author(s):  
Konstantin Kudryavtsev ◽  
Ustav Malkov

AbstractThe paper proposes the concept of a weak Berge equilibrium. Unlike the Berge equilibrium, the moral basis of this equilibrium is the Hippocratic Oath “First do no harm”. On the other hand, any Berge equilibrium is a weak Berge equilibrium. But, there are weak Berge equilibria, which are not the Berge equilibria. The properties of the weak Berge equilibrium have been investigated. The existence of the weak Berge equilibrium in mixed strategies has been established for finite games. The weak Berge equilibria for finite three-person non-cooperative games are computed.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-183
Author(s):  
Thomas Gutmann

Abstract The article presents a ‘critique from within’ of Peter Benson’s book ‘Justice in Transactions’, while sharing its premise that a theory of contract has to be liberal one. It identifies three problems with Benson’s answer to the question of how the relation between freedom and equality in contract law should be understood. It criticizes Benson’s Hegelian metaphysics and claims that a principle of mutual recognition and respect between juridical persons does not require that contracts only allow the alienation and appropriation of different things of the quantitatively same value. It demonstrates that Rawls’s idea of a ‘division of labor’ within principles of justice is more plausible than Benson’s reformulated account, which loses sight of the premise that a liberal theory of contract must locate the normative foundations of ‘contract’ in individual rights, and, in addition, is at odds with Rawls’s project in ‘Political Liberalism’ and its concept of public justification.


2021 ◽  
pp. 136843102098713
Author(s):  
David Martínez ◽  
Alexander Elliott

According to David Miller, immigration is not a human right. Conversely, Kieran Oberman makes a case for immigration as a human right. We agree with the latter view, but we show that its starting point is mistaken. Indeed, both Miller and Oberman discuss the right to immigration within the liberal paradigm: it is a right or not depending on the correct balance between the interests of the citizens of a given national state and the interests of the immigrants. Instead, we claim that public justification can underpin immigration as a human right. That said, the public justification of the right to immigration has several counterarguments to rebut. Before we deal with that issue, relying on Jürgen Habermas’s social theory, we examine the legal structures that could support the right to immigration in practice. To be sure, this does not provide the normative justification needed, instead it shows the framework that allows the institutional realization of this right. Then, through a combination of civic and cosmopolitan forms of solidarity, the article discusses the formation of a public sphere, which could provide the justification of the right to immigration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document