Suchergebnisse

Distributive justice has come to the fore in political philosophy: how should we arrange our social and economic institutions so as to distribute benefits and burdens fairly? Thirty-two leading figures from philosophy and political theory present specially written critical assessments of the key issues in this flourishing area of research.

Distributive justice has come to the fore in political philosophy: how should we arrange our social and economic institutions so as to distribute benefits and burdens fairly? Thirty-eight leading figures from philosophy and political theory present specially written critical assessments of the key issues in this flourishing area of research

Does justice require that individuals get what they deserve? Serena Olsaretti brings together new essays by leading moral and political philosophers examining the relation between desert and justice; they also illuminate the nature of distributive justice, and the relationship between desert and other values, such as equality and responsibility. - ;Serena Olsaretti brings together new essays by leading moral and political philosophers on the nature of desert and justice, their relations with each other and with other values. Does justice require that individuals get what they deserve? What exa.

Cover; Half-title; Title; Copyright; Dedication; Contents; Acknowledgements; Introduction; Chapter 1 Desert and justifications of the market; Chapter 2 Incentive payments and compensatory desert; Chapter 3 Productive contributions and deserved market rewards; Chapter 4 Liberty and entitlements in the libertarian justification of the free market; Chapter 5 The moralised defence of the free market: a critique; Chapter 6 The free market, force and choice: beyond libertarians and their critics; Conclusion; Bibliography; Index.

Egalitarian theories assume, without defending it, the view that the costs of children should be shared between non-parents and parents. This standard position is called into question by the Parental Provision view. Drawing on the familiar idea that people should be held responsible for the consequences of their choices, the Parental Provision view holds that under certain conditions egalitarian justice requires parents to pay for the full costs of their children, as it would be unfair for non-parents to bear the negative externalities of others' choices to have children. This article examines closely the Parental Provision view and argues that various possible justifications for it are unsuccessful. In so doing, it brings to light respects in which the choice to have and rear children is special and may not be treated as being on a par with other choices for which we think people should be held responsible.

The concept of desert is enjoying a revival in contemporary political philosophy. After a period in which this principle has been largely neglected & John Rawls's critique of it widely endorsed, the possibility that desert should be adopted within a theory of distributive justice is now defended by several writers on the subject. This article maps the ground for the adoption of desert as a principle of justice. After identifying a few main features that characterize the concept of desert in the abstract, the article identifies three main areas of contention in characterizing the principle. These concern the question of what constitutes the appropriate bases on which individuals become deserving; the issue of the relation between desert & responsibility; & the question of whether desert is a pre-institutional principle. By examining these thorny issues in the desert debate & the possible stances that may be taken on them, the article aims to make room for the possibility that a defensible principle of desert may be articulated & adopted within a theory of justice. Adapted from the source document.