Suchergebnisse

This Element argues that although Kant's political thought does not tackle issues of global poverty and inequality head on, it nonetheless offers important conceptual and normative resources to think of our global socioeconomic duties. It delves into the Kantian duty to enter a rightful condition beyond the state and shows that a proper understanding of this duty not only leads us to acknowledge a duty of right to assist states that are unable to fulfil the core functions of a state, but also provides valuable hints at what just transnational trade relations and a just regulation of immigration should look like.

Today's discourse on struggling rural communities insists they are "dying" or "forgotten." Many point to globalization and automation as the culprits that made livelihoods in agriculture, natural resource extraction, and manufacturing obsolete, fueling social problems such as the opioid crisis. This narrative fails to offer a path forward; the status quo is no one's fault, and this "natural" rural death inspires mourning rather than resuscitation. This Article offers a more illuminating account of the rural story, told through the lens of distributive justice principles. The Article argues that rural communities have not just "died." They were sacrificed. Specifically, distributive justice theories question the morality of public measures that disadvantage discrete groups in the name of aggregate welfare. A critique of legal frameworks shaping rural livelihoods for the past several decades shows that policymakers consistently decided to trade rural welfare for some perceived societal benefit, violating distributive justice norms. In agriculture, policies favoring consolidated agribusiness hollowed out once-multidimensional farm communities. In the extractive sector, lackluster oversight enabled the environmental and economic devastation of fossil fuel communities. In manufacturing, trade adjustment programs' inadequate mitigation of international competition facilitated whole towns' dismantlement. Decisionmakers pointed to "the greater good" as their rationale. But benefits for rural communities that would offset these burdens and render their sacrifice "just" prove elusive. This alternate narrative reveals the rural story as not morally neutral, but one infused with value judgments that determined winners and losers, raising questions of what a fairer allocation of benefits and burdens should be.

Charles Beitz's Political Theory and International Relations has had an enormous impact on analyses of the ethical issues raised at the global level. It was the first systematic discussion of such ethical issues in the last 50 years if not more. It remains a landmark for a number of different reasons. First, it stands out for the sophistication of its philosophical argument and the meticulous argumentation throughout. The latter is deployed not simply to provide powerful critiques of other perspectives (such as realism and the morality of states). It also puts forward and defends with considerable ingenuity a cosmopolitan theory of distributive justice. A second striking and impressive feature of the book is that it successfully integrates philosophical argument with a deep grasp of the nature of world politics and the empirical and theoretical literatures on salient aspects of world politics.

The challenge of contemporary health care distribution is to structure a framework for normative decision making whereby the goal of distributive justice is achieved equitably for as many citizens as possible. Establishing fair procedures for the distribution of health care resources is a crucial goal for contemporary society to set and, hopefully, to achieve. It is only by and through deliberate debate within a democracy that assumptions, for example, about aging, the value of life for the aged and intergenerational responsibilities of assisting them in their care can be set, tested or - as the case may be - rejected. No matter within what policy forum this debate occurs - local, state, or national - a fundamental balancing test will, of necessity, be employed; one that weighs, in an equitable and reasonable manner, individual needs with larger societal standards of economic efficiency. By seeking to integrate moral and ethical reasoning with quantitative or economic formulations of needs and resources, the opportunities for a stronger and more contemporary standard of distributive justice will be both enhanced and stabilized. The ultimate moral issue seen in this debate is not - rather surprisingly - whether too much or too little treatment is offered; but rather how to seek an optimum level of reasonable or appropriate treatment based on the medical condition of each patient. Failing to meet resolutely the inherent difficulty of allocative decisions here foredooms the total decisionmaking process to a continued state of lethargy where inaction becomes the tragic hallmark of the distribution of health care for the elderly.

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

Comments on Simon Caney's "International Distributive Justice" (2001), pointing out that this masterly guide to debates on global justice carries an equivocation about the meaning of "cosmopolitanism" between radical & mild versions. Caney presents cosmopolitanism as a claim for distributive justice on grounds of individual properties rather than cultural or national membership. This cosmopolitanism, as described, would be included within all international ethics & political philosophy. Carey presents nationalism & cosmopolitanism as incompatible. While he seeks to reconcile the two concepts, he actually presents a vindication of cosmopolitanism. However, a mirror argument could be presented for distributive justice as both a national & a global duty. A better distinction is between cosmopolitans & their opponents who believe concern for global inequality is necessary only when the inequality involves poverty, exploitation, & other basic needs. Cosmopolitanism desires social justice in terms of uniformity while, in direct opposition, communitarianism & nationalism visualizes diversity among different world cultures. 4 References. L. A. Hoffman

ABSTRACT: How should the aid financial burden be distributed across donor governments? This article discusses the "distributive justice" of the current aid-financing pattern, and advocates a progressive modality in which citizens from donor countries with higher living standards contribute proportionally more than citizens from countries with lower living standards. For this purpose, we conceive public foreign aid as a tax mechanism for redistributing income on a worldwide scale. The progressivity analysis for 45 bilateral donors (28 DAC countries and 17 non-DAC donors) using concentration curves and Suits indexes between 2000 and 2012 shows that the current distribution of the aid burden is insufficiently progressive (mainly due to the limited contributions of the richer donors). Finally, we argue that a progressive exaction scheme will improve the distributive justice of the aid system.

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.

This chapter introduces the idea of distributive justice. It identifies several different views of what characterizes distributive justice, as opposed to other types of justice and to non-justice-based moral demands. The preconditions of distributive justice, its primary subject and its object, and its normative significance are discussed. The chapter then suggests that bringing the diversity of usages of the concept of distributive justice into view helps cast light on some of the many contemporary debates about distributive justice and its limits. This chapter also introduces and outlines the different topics covered by the different sections and chapters of the book. ; This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme (Grant Agreement Number: 648610).

Over the past decades, transport researchers and policymakers have devoted increasing attention to questions about justice and equity. Nonetheless, there is still little engagement with theories in political philosophy to frame what justice means in the context of transport policies. This paper reviews key theories of justice (utilitarianism, libertarianism, intuitionism, Rawls' egalitarianism, and Capability Approaches), and critically evaluates the insights they generate when applied to transport. Based on a dialogue between Rawlsian and Capability Approaches, we propose that distributive justice concerns over transport disadvantage and social exclusion should focus primarily on accessibility as a human capability. This means that, in policy evaluation, a detailed analysis of distributional effects of transport policies should consider minimum standards of accessibility to key destinations and the extent of which these policies respect individuals' rights and prioritize disadvantaged groups, reduce inequalities of opportunities and mitigate transport externalities. A full account of justice in transportation requires a more complete understanding of accessibility than traditional approaches have been able to deliver to date.