Suchergebnisse

AbstractLuck egalitarians maintain that inequalities are always unjust when they are due to luck, but are not always unjust when they are due to choices for which the parties are responsible. In this paper, I argue that the two halves of this formula do not fit neatly together, and that we arrive at one version of luck egalitarianism if we begin with the notion of luck and interpret responsible choice in terms of its absence, but a very different version if we begin with the notion of responsible choice and interpret luck in terms of its absence. I argue, further, that the difference between the two versions is significant because many real-world inequalities fall precisely in the gap between them, and that attempts to adjudicate between them lead quickly to hard questions about the relation between equality and responsibility.

Most individuals desire a more egalitarian society but figuring out what that would mean and how to get there is unclear. Elizabeth Anderson's relational egalitarianism is one approach to understanding what building a more egalitarian society would mean; this article will agree with her analysis but will highlight how, in attempting to achieve that goal, some serious issues arise. Specifically, Anderson mentions that a consequence of her view would be the elimination of "outcasts" as a status of social groups and how this leads to a tension between promoting social relationships as a primary good and respecting autonomy and privacy. This article will attempt to navigate this tension by providing a close analysis of how outcasts are created and clearly articulating how the elimination of such a group status creates the aforementioned tension. The upshot of the analysis is a sketch of a positive proposal that avoids the tension and makes progress toward the elimination of outcasts as a social group.

Analysis of secondary data from surveys of the 1970s contradicts propositions that egalitarianism was or is accepted by the great majority of Yugoslavians. Nonegalitarian values are shown to exist in the Yugoslavian population; in fact, nonegalitarianist thought prevails in higher social strata. Ideological implications of this finding are discussed, & the functions of egalitarianism in Yugoslav society are explored. It is determined that the "egalitarian syndrome" helps integrate & stabilize the society, but also contributes to long term economic stagnation, which undermines societal integration & paves the way for actualizing inert social tensions & conflicts. Short-term responses to these tendencies are discussed, & it is determined that only through radical changes in how political power is legitimated can long-term regulation for these inherent contradictions be provided. 31 References. D. Dennis

Luck egalitarian theories of justice are frequently criticised for being unduly harsh on people who experience disadvantage as a result of their responsible choices. According to the "abandonment objection", luck egalitarians are committed to abandoning even very severely disadvantaged persons as long as responsibility figures in the right way in the genesis of their disadvantage. This article makes a distinction between two views that are insufficiently distinguished in the literature. Weak luck egalitarianism is the view that justice requires us to cater to the claims of victims of bad brute luck before there is an obligation to assist responsible victims. Strong luck egalitarianism is the view that responsibility robustly determines the requirements of justice. The abandonment objection presumably targets the less plausible strong view. It does not seem to touch the more plausible weak view. The article consequently argues that the abandonment objection is either trivial or wrong. Adapted from the source document.

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