Maimonides’ Treatment of Christianity and its Normative Implications

2018 ◽  
pp. 217-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID NOVAK
1998 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Grantham

THE concept of ownership is a complex, powerful and controversial idea. In law it explains, justifies and gives moral force to a host of rights and duties as well as serving to legitimate the allocation of wealth and privilege. The influence of this idea is, furthermore, everywhere embodied in the law. In company law, legal and economic conceptions have both rested on and have been shaped by the normative implications of ownership. Historically, ownership was the principal explanation and justification for the central role of shareholders in corporate affairs. As owners, shareholders were entitled to control the management of the company and to the exclusive benefit of the company's activities. Ownership also served to legitimate the corporate form itself. So long as it was owned by individuals the economic and political power of the company was both benign and a bulwark against the intrusion of the state.


Human Affairs ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-174
Author(s):  
Nikola Kallová

Abstract This paper explores happiness as an aim of education, particularly schooling. What role does happiness play in philosophy of education? How do critics view the aims of public schooling today and its relation to happiness? Is happiness embedded in the concept of education as an aim of education? The paper explores happiness—understood inclusively as a positive mental state—by examining the relevant literature from various disciplines. It looks briefly at critical views of current trends in public school practice and concludes that happiness is not a central concern in present public school practice. Turning to philosophy of education, the author finds that happiness has been considered in relation to the philosophical conception of the human self and consequently eudaimonia has been prioritized over hedonia. The paper concludes by proposing that happiness is an appropriate and valid aim of education and schooling based on the normative implications of the concept of education.


2012 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Neuhouser

AbstractThis paper examines the kind of genealogical project Rousseau undertakes in the Discourse on the Origins of Inequality. It explains what it is for Rousseau to discover the “origins” of inequality and examines the normative implications of such an account, especially the relation his genealogical claims have to his critique of society. After arguing that the Discourse singles out l'amour propre as the psychological source of inequality, the paper reconstructs Rousseau's account of the origin of inequality and its criteria for judging the legitimacy of inequalities. It also highlights similarities among Rousseau's use of genealogy and later genealogical projects, such as Nietzsche's.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Daase ◽  
Nicole Deitelhoff

Rule is commonly conceptualized with reference to the compliance it invokes. In this article, we propose a conception of rule via the practice of resistance instead. In contrast to liberal approaches, we stress the possibility of illegitimate rule, and, as opposed to critical approaches, the possibility of legitimate authority. In the international realm, forms of rule and the changes they undergo can thus be reconstructed in terms of the resistance they provoke. To this end, we distinguish between two types of resistance—opposition and dissidence—in order to demonstrate how resistance and rule imply each other. We draw on two case studies of resistance in and to international institutions to illustrate the relationship between rule and resistance and close with a discussion of the normative implications of such a conceptualization.


2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 53-64
Author(s):  
Monika Jovanovic

I begin with the thesis that the most appropriate classification of ethical theories pertains to their structural characteristics and give the advantage to the particularism/ generalism dichotomy over the deontological/teleological and act-centered/agent-centered classifications. Subsequently I use the example of Ross?s ethics of prima facie duties to illustrate how this distinction can be properly applied to a seemingly problematic case. In the first part of the paper I aim to show that Ross?s view is, in spite of its use of deontological terminology, essentially particularist. I then examine the specificities of Ross?s pluralism and explore the connection between prima facie duties and normative moral reasons. In the second part of the paper I criticize Audi?s interpretation of Ross?s ethics and show that Ross?s view doesn?t have the normative implications that Audi ascribes to it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document