Suchergebnisse

Two parties bargaining over a pie, the size of which is determined by their previous investment decisions. Investment costs are heterogeneous. The bargaining rule is sensitive to investment behavior. Two games are studied which differ for the considered sociopolitical structure: communal property in one case and private property in the other. We hereby show that in both games when a unique stochastically stable outcome exists a norm of investment and a norm of surplus division must coevolve. While the investment norm always supports the efficient investment profile, the surplus division norm may differ among these games depending on the size of investment cost gap. Under private property only the egalitarian surplus division evolves. Under communal property instead two different surplus division norms may evolve: the egalitarian one and an inegalitarian norm. We show that no cap to payoffs inequality emerges under private property while an inequality payoff cap endogenously evolves under communal property. The games have been proposed to explain the social norms used in modern hunter-gatherer societies.

This paper presents what luck egalitarianism, one of the major frameworks in contemporary political philosophy, has to say on the questions of what children are owed and who should pay for the children in a society. Luck egalitarianism seems to imply firstly, that children are owed equal life prospects to everybody else, and secondly, that parents should pay. However, it seems unacceptable to make parents pay the full costs of egalitarian justice when they themselves have been disadvantaged in an unequal society. In non-ideal theory, the luck egalitarian should translate this insight into some joint responsibility for children.

A number of philosophers working in applied ethics and bioethics are now earnestly debating the ethics of what they term moral bioenhancement. I argue that the society-wide program of biological manipulations required to achieve the purported goals of moral bioenhancement would necessarily implicate the state in a controversial moral perfectionism. Moreover, the prospect of being able to reliably identify some people as, by biological constitution, significantly and consistently more moral than others would seem to pose a profound challenge to egalitarian social and political ideals. Even if moral bioenhancement should ultimately prove to be impossible, there is a chance that a bogus science of bioenhancement would lead to arbitrary inequalities in access to political power or facilitate the unjust rule of authoritarians; in the meantime, the debate about the ethics of moral bioenhancement risks reinvigorating dangerous ideas about the extent of natural inequality in the possession of the moral faculties.

The significance of formal criteria which could help to sort out the problem of tolerance paradox has emerged in the background of cultural egalitarianism. Alas, such criteria have not been established so far. The conviction that the problem of tolerance is significant just in the context of social and political discourse might be questioned due to the fact that this attitude did not help to tackle this problem throughout the last centuries. The paper aims to show that the problem of tolerance can be solved taking into account systemic attitude and synergetic insights. The current study into the literature on tolerance concludes that the formal criterion, which defines the tolerance boundaries in the most general sense, is considered to be such deviations from the standard (as ideal parameters of social system) when tolerance can function normally (stably). Cultural egalitarianism, which requires equalizing the rights of the majority and the minorities facing discrimination, impinges on the ratio of necessary diversity, and thus has to be questioned. Tolerancijos ribos ir kultūrinis egalitarizmas Santrauka.Formaliu kriteriju, kurie leistu spresti tolerancijos paradokso problema, svarbaišryškejo kulturinio egalitarizmo akivaizdoje. Tokiu kriteriju nera iki šiol.Isitikinimas, kad tolerancijos problema prasminga tik socialinio ir politinio diskursokontekste, gali buti kvestionuojamas vien todel, kad per kelis šimtmeciusši nuostata problemos išspresti nepadejo. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad tolerancijosproblema galima spresti sisteminiu požiuriu ir sociosinergetikos ižvalgomis.Tolerancijai skirtos literaturos analize leidžia daryti išvada, kad bendriausiuatveju tolerancijos ribas nustatanciu formaliu kriterijumi galima laikyti tokiusnukrypimus nuo normos (kaip idealiu visuomenines sistemos parametru), kuriemsesant ji dar gali normaliai (stabiliai) funkcionuoti. Kulturinis egalitarizmas,reikalaujantis sulyginti daugumos ir diskriminuojamu mažumu teises, pažeidžiabutinos ivairoves proporcijas ir todel yra kvestionuotinas. ...

The significance of formal criteria which could help to sort out the problem of tolerance paradox has emerged in the background of cultural egalitarianism. Alas, such criteria have not been established so far. The conviction that the problem of tolerance is significant just in the context of social and political discourse might be questioned due to the fact that this attitude did not help to tackle this problem throughout the last centuries. The paper aims to show that the problem of tolerance can be solved taking into account systemic attitude and synergetic insights. The current study into the literature on tolerance concludes that the formal criterion, which defines the tolerance boundaries in the most general sense, is considered to be such deviations from the standard (as ideal parameters of social system) when tolerance can function normally (stably). Cultural egalitarianism, which requires equalizing the rights of the majority and the minorities facing discrimination, impinges on the ratio of necessary diversity, and thus has to be questioned. Tolerancijos ribos ir kultūrinis egalitarizmas Santrauka Formaliu kriteriju, kurie leistu spresti tolerancijos paradokso problema, svarbaišryškejo kulturinio egalitarizmo akivaizdoje. Tokiu kriteriju nera iki šiol.Isitikinimas, kad tolerancijos problema prasminga tik socialinio ir politinio diskursokontekste, gali buti kvestionuojamas vien todel, kad per kelis šimtmeciusši nuostata problemos išspresti nepadejo. Straipsnyje parodoma, kad tolerancijosproblema galima spresti sisteminiu požiuriu ir sociosinergetikos ižvalgomis.Tolerancijai skirtos literaturos analize leidžia daryti išvada, kad bendriausiuatveju tolerancijos ribas nustatanciu formaliu kriterijumi galima laikyti tokiusnukrypimus nuo normos (kaip idealiu visuomenines sistemos parametru), kuriemsesant ji dar gali normaliai (stabiliai) funkcionuoti. Kulturinis egalitarizmas,reikalaujantis sulyginti daugumos ir diskriminuojamu mažumu teises, pažeidžiabutinos ivairoves proporcijas ir todel yra kvestionuotinas. Reikšminiai žodžiai: egalitarizmas, tolerancijos paradoksas, tolerancijos ribos,butinos disharmonijos konstanta

In the spring of 2009, a novel strain of the H1N1 influenza virus, containing a never before witnessed combination of gene segments from human influenza, two forms of swine influenza, and avian influenza, 1 was declared a global pandemic. The UK Government had to decide whether to undertake, at a cost of £1.2 billion (USD 1.9 billion at the time, equivalent to 1 percent of that year's health budget), an extensive set of preparatory measures, including the purchase of both antiviral medication and a novel vaccine in quantities sufficient to cover the entire UK population, or whether instead to take substantially less costly measures, which would involve having only a limited supply of these medicines and vaccines at hand.2 The possible.

Two prominent relational egalitarians, Elizabeth Anderson and Niko Kolodny, object to giving people in a democratic community differential voting weights on the grounds that doing so would lead to unequal relations between them. Their claim is that deviating from a "one-person, one-vote" scheme is incompatible with realizing relational egalitarian justice. In this article, I argue that they are wrong. I do so by showing that people can relate as moral, epistemic, social, and empirical equals in a scheme with differential voting weights. I end the article by showing that from the perspective of relational egalitarianism, it is sometimes true that differential voting weights are more just than equal voting weights.

The concept of responsibility plays a crucial part in the debate between proponents of democratic equality, like Rawls, and defenders of luck egalitarianism, such as Dworkin. In this paper it is argued that the two theories can be combined, and that they should be combined to achieve a theory of justice that puts personal responsibility in its proper place. The concept of justice requires two different conceptions. The two theories can be combined because they deal with different problems of justice. They ought to be combined because, first, luck egalitarianism needs a theory of background justice, and second, a theory of justice must supply an answer to the question of just individual allocations, something that is not provided by democratic equality. Democratic equality and luck egalitarianism solve each other's problems. The combined theory will lead to allocations of goods that respect both the difference principle and the envy test.

Individual differences in social and political attitudes have their roots in evolved motives for basic kinds of social relationships. Egalitarianism is the preference for the application of the one of these relational models-equality—over that of another—dominance—to the context of societal intergroup relations. We present recent research on the origins of egalitarianism in terms of universal social cognitive mechanisms (activated as early as infancy), systematic (partly heritable) individual differences, and the affordances and constraints of one's immediate and macro-structural context. Just as the psychological impact of socioeconomic conditions depends on the mind being equipped to perceive and navigate them, so the expression of the evolved underpinnings of inequality concerns depends critically on social and societal experiences.

Anthony Forge was a pioneer in the anthropology of art and established an international reputation in this field. His work on the political anthropology of egalitarianism, by contrast, has been virtually ignored because of the demise of British Social Anthropology as a method, and the rise of inequality as the problem to be investigated. Some fifty years have passed since Forge did his fieldwork in the Sepik District of Papua New Guinea; a critical reappraisal of his method and ideas in light of the political history of democracy in Oceania is called for. Equality as a male value has re-emerged as a key concern for the new 'Big Shot', so too has equal exchange, but in the form of the commercial gift. If we are to grasp the general principles, and paradoxes, that inform transactions of this kind, anthropologists need to reassess their prejudices about the method of British Social Anthropology.

Anthony Forge was a pioneer in the anthropology of art and established an international reputation in this field. His work on the political anthropology of egalitarianism, by contrast, has been virtually ignored because of the demise of British Social Anthropology as a method, and the rise of inequality as the problem to be investigated. Some fifty years have passed since Forge did his fieldwork in the Sepik District of Papua New Guinea; a critical reappraisal of his method and ideas in light of the political history of democracy in Oceania is called for. Equality as a male value has re-emerged as a key concern for the new 'Big Shot', so too has equal exchange, but in the form of the commercial gift. If we are to grasp the general principles, and paradoxes, that inform transactions of this kind, anthropologists need to reassess their prejudices about the method of British Social Anthropology.

Mateship is an important element of the so-called "Australian Tradition" in literature. It consists of a particular bond between men who travel the rural areas known as "the bush" or "the outback". This article examines some of Henry Lawson's mateship stories, with a focus on the different connotations that the term can assume for the author, especially regarding the theme of egalitarianism. It considers how the Bulletin Magazine, which "discovered" Lawson and published many of his stories, had a role in fostering a special model of Australian democracy and a peculiar style for Australian literature. It also reflects on how the dissemination of Lawson's stories through periodicals in the last decades of the 19th century helped create a feeling of what Benedict Anderson calls "nation-ness".---Original in English. ---DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22409/gragoata.2018n45a1057. ; Mateship is an important element of the so-called "Australian Tradition" in literature. It consists of a particular bond between men who travel the rural areas known as "the bush" or "the outback". This article examines some of Henry Lawson's mateship stories, with a focus on the different connotations that the term can assume for the author, especially regarding the theme of egalitarianism. It considers how the Bulletin Magazine, which "discovered" Lawson and published many of his stories, had a role in fostering a special model of Australian democracy and a peculiar style for Australian literature. It also reflects on how the dissemination of Lawson's stories through periodicals in the last decades of the 19th century helped create a feeling of what Benedict Anderson calls "nation-ness". --- MATESHIP E IGUALITARISMO NOS CONTOS DE HENRY LAWSONMateship é um elemento importante da chamada "Tradição Australiana" na literatura. Refere-se a um vínculo especial entre homens que percorrem as áreas rurais conhecidas na Austrália como "the bush" ou "the outback". Este artigo examina alguns dos contos de Henry Lawson que trazem esse elemento, com ênfase especial nas diferentes conotações que o termo pode assumir para o autor, especialmente com relação à temática do igualitarismo. O artigo considera como o periódico Bulletin, o qual "descobriu" Lawson e publicou vários de seus contos, foi relevante para a promoção de um modelo particular de democracia na Austrália e um estilo característico para a literatura local. O artigo também reflete sobre como a disseminação dos contos de Lawson por meio de periódicos na última década do século XIX contribuiu para a criação do que Benedict Anderson chama de "nation-ness".---Artigo em inglês. ---DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22409/gragoata.2018n45a1057.

People's health is hugely affected by where they live, their occupational status and their socio-economic position. It has been widely argued that the presence of such social determinants in health provides good reasons to reject luck egalitarianism as a theory of distributive justice in health. The literature provides different reasons why this responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice should not be applied to health. The critiques submit that (i) the social circumstances undermine or remove people's responsibility for their health; (ii) responsibility sensitive health policies would adversely affect those who are worst off and; (iii) the luck egalitarian approach to health distracts from the important task of rectifying socio-economic influences on people's health and provides individualistic solutions to collective problems. But for each of these variants of the critique luck egalitarianism provides suitable answers. The literature on social determinants is no detriment to the project of applying luck egalitarianism to health.

Many political theorists defend the view that egalitarian justice should extend from the domestic to the global arena. Despite its intuitive appeal, this global egalitarianism has come under attack from different quarters. In this article, we focus on one particular set of challenges to this view: those advanced by domestic egalitarians. We consider seven types of challenges, each pointing to a specific disanalogy between domestic and global arenas which is said to justify the restriction of egalitarian justice to the former, and argue that none of them both individually and jointly offers a conclusive refutation of global egalitarianism.

Many political theorists defend the view that egalitarian justice should extend from the domestic to the global arena. Despite its intuitive appeal, this global egalitarianism has come under attack from different quarters. In this article, we focus on one particular set of challenges to this view: those advanced by domestic egalitarians. We consider seven types of challenges, each pointing to a specific disanalogy between domestic and global arenas which is said to justify the restriction of egalitarian justice to the former, and argue that none of them both individually and jointly offers a conclusive refutation of global egalitarianism.