scholarly journals Social metaphysics—gender

Metaphysics ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 185-209
Author(s):  
Michael Rea
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Holly Lawford-Smith

Given their size and influence, states are able to inflict harm far beyond the reach of a single individual. But there is a great deal of unclarity about exactly who is implicated in that kind of harm, and how we should think about both culpability and responsibility for it. The idea of popular sovereignty is dominant in classical political theory. It is a commonplace assumption that democratic publics both authorize and have control over what their states do; that their states act in their name and on their behalf. Not In Their Name approaches these assumptions from the perspective of social metaphysics, asking whether the state is a collective agent, and whether ordinary citizens are members of that agent. If it is, and they are, there is a clear case for democratic collective culpability. The book explores alternative conceptions of the state and of membership in the state; alternative conceptions of collective agency applied to the state; the normative implications of membership in the state; and both culpability (from the inside) and responsibility (from the outside) for what the state does. Ultimately, Not In Their Name argues for the exculpation of ordinary citizens and the inculpation of those working in public services, and defends a particular distribution of culpability from government to its members.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 447-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAËL BAUWENS

AbstractThe recent economic crisis has re-ignited the debate over the institution of fractional reserve banking (FRB) and its possible adverse economic effects. This paper brings a so far neglected aspect of the problem to the table, namely social ontology. After addressing the scope of social ontology in relation to social metaphysics, social science and FRB, a general ontological framework for money and banking is sketched and applied to the debate between Austrian opponents and proponents of FRB. It shows that the oppositions reflect metaphysical and ontological positions on the reality of powers and dispositions, namely that a realist position in the metaphysics of powers and dispositions tends to a critical position toward FRB, whereas a sceptical position on powers and dispositions leads to a favorable position toward FRB. A final section gives further examples of how these ontological presuppositions shape other arguments in the debate.


2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Saunders

Metaphysics has undergone two major innovations in recent decades. First, naturalistic metaphysicians have argued that our best science provides an important source of evidence for metaphysical theories. Second, social metaphysicians have begun to explore the nature of social entities such as groups, institutions, and social categories. Surprisingly, these projects have largely kept their distance from one another. Katherine Hawley has recently argued that, unlike the natural sciences, the social sciences are not sufficiently successful to provide evidence about the metaphysical nature of social entities. By contrast, I defend an optimistic view of naturalistic social metaphysics. Drawing on a case study of research into contextual effects in social epidemiology, I show that social science can provide a valuable evidence for social metaphysicians.


Horizons ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-115
Author(s):  
James J. Walter

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to study critically the positions of six authors on the foundations of the professions and of professional ethics. These positions are placed along a continuum which is created by correlating two variables that appear in each author's writings. The implied or explicit anthropology and metaethical theory of the authors are central concerns of the study. The issue whether the professional is governed by role-specific duties or by role-distinctive duties is analyzed in depth. In the end, the author cannot accept any of the six positions and so the final section of the article fashions a constructive proposal grounded in a social metaphysics of the human person.


2017 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. 359-374
Author(s):  
Adam Sulikowski

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE “DEATH OF GOD”The “death of God” — a Nietzschean metaphor — is still considered as an excellent diagnosis of the condition of modern societies deprived of metaphysical ground. The author uses this metaphor to illustrate the genealogy and the present of conservative criticism of human rights. This criticism is based on the allegation that the ideology of human rights is responsible for the breakdown of the “social metaphysics” of the West. The author attempts to show the dangerous potential of conservative criticism of human rights. In the following part of his paper the author refers to the phenomenon of “the end of grand narratives” treated as another dimension of the “death of God” and formulates the question of possible solutions to the problem of justification of human rights in postmodern conditions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-260
Author(s):  
Aaron M. Griffith

AbstractÁsta’s Categories We Live By is a superb addition to the literature on social metaphysics. In it she offers a powerful framework for understanding the creation and maintenance of social categories. In this commentary piece, I want to draw attention to Ásta’s reliance on explanatory individualism – the view that the social world is best explained by the actions and attitudes of individuals. I argue that this reliance makes it difficult for Ásta to explain how many social categories are maintained and why certain categories are reliably available to us and so resistant to change. These explanatory deficiencies could be overcome, I argue, by eschewing explanatory individualism and positing social structures to figure in structural explanations of the maintenance and availability of social categories.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomáš Kobes

This article discusses the controversy of the sociological imagination as it was developed by Charles Wright Mills and its relevance for the current epistemology of social science. His notion of the sociological imagination has several problems due to the unreflected general prejudice distinguishing between structure and subjectivity, which creates from sociology a kind of social metaphysics. As a result, social context is conceptualised as an unproblematic domain used for the rationalisation of an actor’s behaviour and knowledge, and the sociological imagination gives the sociologist an absolute critical position which situates him paradoxically in the name of justice and freedom against humanity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document