Transformations of Normative Foundations and Empirical Sociologies

2019 ◽  
pp. 283-312
Author(s):  
Michael D. Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Normative Foundations

Punishment and Citizenship

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milena Tripkovic
Keyword(s):  
Historical Development ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Political Organization ◽  
Citizenship Status ◽  
Criminal Conviction ◽  
Criminal Offender ◽  
Normative Foundations ◽  
Common Understanding

The book develops a normative theory of criminal disenfranchisement and determines which offenders may justifiably lose electoral rights after criminal conviction. Having examined the historical development of the practice and contemporary electoral restrictions—which reveal that disenfranchisement is still widespread in European democracies—the book goes on to explore the nature of this sanction and its normative foundations. Diverging from common understanding, the book proposes that criminal disenfranchisement is not a form of punishment, but a citizenship sanction that aims to reduce membership entitlements of disenfranchised criminals and deplete their citizenship status. To determine whether criminal disenfranchisement can be justified, it is necessary to understand the substance of membership in a polity and the requirements that a citizen ought to satisfy to enjoy a full range of rights attached to this status. To account for possible differences in citizenship requirements between diverse types of polities, the book develops three ideal-typical models, which are loosely tied to the liberal, republican, and communitarian forms of political organization. The book contends that, regardless of internal differences, only one kind of criminal offender fails to satisfy citizenship requirements in all three types of polity and may thus incur electoral restrictions—a person who has seriously and irreversibly severed citizenship ties with her polity owing to an incorrigible lack of moral conscience. The book concludes by specifying additional conditions that ought to be satisfied before restrictions can be enacted, but also suggests reasons for which polities may abstain from imposing them.

Moral Norms in Social Contexts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Herzog
Keyword(s):  
Division Of Labour ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Moral Norms ◽  
Overlapping Consensus ◽  
Social Sphere ◽  
Moral Theories ◽  
Moral Dimensions ◽  
Collective Harm ◽  
Normative Foundations

This chapter sets out the normative foundations on which the book is based. It starts by defending the case for the ‘pervasiveness’ of morality: no social sphere is ‘beyond’ morality, even if there is some degree of institutional ‘division of labour’. Next, it states and explains the moral norms this study is based on: the norm to respect all individuals as moral equals, and norms about the avoidance of individual harm, and about avoiding contributing to collective harm. These norms lie within an ‘overlapping consensus’ of different moral theories and worldviews. In pluralist societies, we should focus on such a consensus—even if it may sometimes be hard to delineate—when reflecting on the moral dimensions of organizations.

Autonomy in Transactions

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-183
Author(s):  
Thomas Gutmann
Keyword(s):  
Division Of Labor ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Liberal Theory ◽  
Public Justification ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Normative Foundations

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.

Habermas on Rawls and the normative foundations of democracy

2021 ◽  
pp. 136843102098541
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Kędziora
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Veil Of Ignorance ◽  
Normative Foundation ◽  
Internal Relations ◽  
The Veil ◽  
Politics And Law ◽  
Normative Foundations

The debate between Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls concerns the question of how to do political philosophy under conditions of cultural pluralism, if the aim of political philosophy is to uncover the normative foundation of a modern liberal democracy. Rawls’s political liberalism tries to bypass the problem of pluralism, using the intellectual device of the veil of ignorance, and yet paradoxically at the same time it treats it as something given and as an arbiter of justification within the political conception of justice. Habermas argues that Rawls not only incorrectly operationalizes the moral point of view from which we discern what is just but also fails to capture the specificity of democracy which is given by internal relations between politics and law. This deprives Rawls’s political philosophy of the conceptual tools needed to articulate the normative foundation of democracy.

scholarly journals Implementation in practice: The use of force to protect civilians in United Nations peacekeeping

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 458-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingvild Bode ◽  
John Karlsrud
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Member States ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Peacekeeping ◽  
Normative Foundations

Since the failures of the United Nations of the early 1990s, the protection of civilians has evolved as a new norm for United Nations peacekeeping operations. However, a 2014 United Nations report found that while peacekeeping mandates often include the use of force to protect civilians, this has routinely been avoided by member states. What can account for this gap between the apparently solid normative foundations of the protection of civilians and the wide variation in implementation? This article approaches the question by highlighting normative ambiguity as a fundamental feature of international norms. Thereby, we consider implementation as a political, dynamic process where the diverging understandings that member states hold with regard to the protection of civilians norm manifest and emerge. We visualize this process in combining a critical-constructivist approach to norms with practice theories. Focusing on the practices of member states’ military advisers at the United Nations headquarters in New York, and their positions on how the protection of civilians should be implemented on the ground, we draw attention to their agency in norm implementation at an international site. Military advisers provide links between national ministries and contingents in the field, while also competing for being recognized as competent performers of appropriate implementation practices. Drawing on an interpretivist analysis of data generated through an online survey, a half-day workshop and interviews with selected delegations, the article adds to the understanding of norms in international relations while also providing empirical insights into peacekeeping effectiveness.

Does natural law have non-normative foundations?

Sophia ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Ian Gold
Keyword(s):  
Natural Law ◽  
Normative Foundations

Caring Orientations: The Normative Foundations of the Craft of Management

2014 ◽  
Vol 128 (3) ◽  
pp. 575-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven S. Taylor ◽  
Donna Ladkin ◽  
Matt Statler
Keyword(s):  
Normative Foundations

Transitional Justice

2018 ◽  
pp. 152-165
Author(s):  
Susanne Buckley-Zistel
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Cultural Preferences ◽  
Historical Developments ◽  
Global And Local ◽  
Normative Foundations ◽  
National Local

Reading transitional justice through IPT requires investigating if and how its notion of justice is embedded in particular normative frameworks, as well as how it relates global and local understandings of justice. The chapter thus analyses what ideas of justice underlie the concept of transitional justice and its application in societies of transition. One central contention is that its normative foundations are the result of historical developments as well as cultural preferences, and reflect a series of beliefs which are sometimes in conflict. Moreover, the chapter situates transitional justice between the local and the global by connecting normative assumptions which derive from a concrete locality with concepts at a global scale, and vice versa. This is in line with the concerns of IPT (moving the discussion of justice from the national to the global), but it also questions the meaning of the scales national (local)/global in and of themselves.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document