Suchergebnisse

Part 1. Nonidealized Methodologies -- Chapter 1. Feminist Approaches to Bioethics -- Chapter 2. Decolonial and/or Postcolonial Approaches to Bioethics -- Chapter 3. Queer Approaches to Bioethics -- Chapter 4. Narrative Methodology as a Nonideal Approach to Bioethics -- Part 2. Nonidealized Applications to Bioethical Research & Practice -- Chapter 5. Epistemology and Knowing in Bioethics -- Chapter 6. Conceptualizing Concepts of Autonomy, Rationality, Risk/Benefit -- Chapter 7. Clinical Ethics Consultation and Moral Stress/Hazard -- Part 3. Policy Implications of Nonidealized Theory in Bioethics -- Chapter 8. U.S. Policy -- Chapter 9. Specific Other Policy Analysis/Recommendations -- Part 4. Global Bioethics Through a Nonidealized Lens -- Chapter 10. Justice and Fairness in Global Research and Medical Practices -- Chapter 11. Priorities in Global Research and Medical Practices -- Chapter 12. Topical Issues.

Contents -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Over-demandingness, Alienation, and Confinement -- 3. Doubts about Over-demandingness -- 4. Moderate Beneficence? -- 5. Responsibility in Nonideal Theory: The Compliance Condition -- 6. The Distribution of the Effects of Compliance -- 7. The Collective Principle of Beneficence -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- W

ohn Rawls is widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and his work has permanently shaped the nature and terms of moral and political philosophy, deploying a robust and specialized vocabulary that reaches beyond philosophy to political science, economics, sociology, and law. This volume is a complete and accessible guide to Rawls' vocabulary, with over 200 alphabetical encyclopaedic entries written by the world's leading Rawls scholars. From 'basic structure' to 'burdened society', from 'Sidgwick' to 'strains of commitment', and from 'Nash point' to 'natural duties', the volume covers the entirety of Rawls' central ideas and terminology, with illuminating detail and careful cross-referencing. It will be an essential resource for students and scholars of Rawls, as well as for other readers in political philosophy, ethics, political science, sociology, international relations and law.

Ideal theory has been extensively contested on the grounds that it is ideology: namely, that it performs the distorting social role of reifying and enforcing unjust features of the status quo. Indeed, a growing number of philosophers adopt a nonideal methodology—which dispenses with ideal theory—because of this ideology critique. I argue, however, that such philosophers are confused about the ultimate dialectical upshot of this critique even if it succeeds. I do so by constructing a parallel—equally plausible—ideology critique of nonideal methodology; specifically, I argue that capitalist and managerial social attitudes have commodified people's conception of justice and induced suspicion of ideal theory, which is not construed as having direct practical value. Consequently, nonideal methodology performs the distorting role of reifying and enforcing the hegemonies of capitalism and managerialism. Ideal theory and nonideal methodology are, therefore, in symmetrically bad positions.

Introduction. Locating a nonideal theory in Kant's political thought: a systematic approach -- History and politics: political history and cosmopolitanism -- A matter of orientation -- Historical patterns, political aims -- Nature, culture, and politics: political anthropology and cosmopolitanism -- Organisms, bodies politic, and progress -- Political Zweckmässigkeit, or from nature to culture -- Nature and politics: political geography and cosmopolitan right -- Teleology and peace on earth -- Peace, hospitality, and the shape of the earth -- Conclusion. Theorizing the lawfulness of the contingent in politics: a defense of teleology.

"Ideal and Nonideal Theory in Political Philosophy" published on by Oxford University Press.

This paper examines the various ways in which nonideal theory responds to noncompliance with ideal principles of justice. Taking Rawls' definition of nonideal theory as my point of departure, I propose an understanding of this concept as comprising two subparts: Complementary nonideal theory responds to deliberate and avoidable noncompliance and consists mainly of theories of civil disobedience, rebellion, and retribution. Substitutive nonideal theory responds to nondeliberate and unavoidable noncompliance and consists mainly of theories of transition and caretaking. I further argue that a special case of substitutive nonideal theory may arise when noncompliance is a result of a lack of motivation among citizens. This situation, I suggest, calls for nonideal theorizing (1) when our aim is to evaluate the political actions undertaken by specific members of a society (in particular the ruling elite) whose set of feasible options is constrained as a result of others' lack of motivation and (2) when a situation of mutually reinforcing distrust and noncooperation—sometimes called a "social trap"—constrains the feasible option set of the entire population. The main advantage of the twofold conceptualization of nonideal theory is that it bridges the theoretical gap between actor-oriented and situation-based accounts of justice: It allows us to preserve the term ideal justice for justice under minimal feasibility constraints, while recognizing that a situation where all agents comply with their duties must in some sense be characterized as just.

Exploring the benefits of using nonideal theory in social ontology, Åsa Burman argues for a needed paradigm shift in the field. Through the Power View, she accommodates important but neglected social phenomena, such as class, and places the concept of social power at the core of a general theory of the social world.

Recent revelations of Iran's hitherto undisclosed uranium enrichment programs have once again incited western fears that Tehran seeks nuclear weapons' capability. Their fears seem motivated by more than the concern for compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Rather, they seem strongly connected to the western moral assumptions about what kind of government or people can be trusted with a nuclear arsenal. In this paper, I critically examine the western assumptions of the immorality of contemporary nuclear proliferation from an international ethical stance that otherwise might be expected to give it unequivocal support – the stance of Kantian nonideal theory. In contrast to the uses of Kant that were prominent during the Cold War, I advance and apply a sketch of a Kantian nonideal theory that specifies the conditions (althoughstrictconditions) under which nuclear proliferation for states like Iran is morally permissibleeven thoughthe NPT forbids it.