This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Subcategories:
664 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 664
Material to categorize
  1. Gerhard Jean Daniël Aalders (1975). Political Thought in Hellenistic Times. A. M. Hakkert.
  2. Fernando Aguiar, Alice Becker & Luis Miller (2013). Whose Impartiality? An Experimental Study of Veiled Stakeholders, Involved Spectators and Detached Observers. Economics and Philosophy 29 (2):155-174.
    We present an experiment designed to investigate three different mechanisms to achieve impartiality in distributive justice. We consider a first-person procedure, inspired by the Rawlsian veil of ignorance,and two third-party procedures, an involved spectator and a detached observer. First-person veiled stakeholders and involved spectators are affected by an initially unfair distribution that, in the stakeholders’ case,is to be redressed. We find substantial differences in the redressing task.Detached observers propose significantly fairer redistributions than veiled takeholders or involved spectators. Risk preferences partly (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Linell Ajello (2014). A Game of Poverty and Tragic Deliberation. Constellations 21 (1):134-152.
  4. J. McKenzie Alexander (2000). Evolutionary Explanations of Distributive Justice. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):490-516.
    Evolutionary game theoretic accounts of justice attempt to explain our willingness to follow certain principles of justice by appealing to robustness properties possessed by those principles. Skyrms (1996) offers one sketch of how such an account might go for divide-the-dollar, the simplest version of the Nash bargaining game, using the replicator dynamics of Taylor and Jonker (1978). In a recent article, D'Arms et al. (1998) criticize his account and describe a model which, they allege, undermines his theory. I sketch a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Larry A. Alexander (1985). Fair Equality of Opportunity. Philosophy Research Archives 11:197-208.
    Although discussions of John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice generally refer to Rawls’ two principles of justice, and although Rawls himself labels his principles “the two principles of justice”, Rawls actually sets forth three distinct principles in the following lexical order: the liberty principle, the fair equality of opportunity principle, and the difference principle. Rawls argues at some length for the priority of the liberty principle over the other two. On the other hand, Rawls offers hardly any argument at all (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Anita L. Allen (2011). Was I Entitled or Should I Apologize? Affirmative Action Going Forward. Journal of Ethics 15 (3):253-263.
    As a U.S. civil rights policy, affirmative action commonly denotes race-conscious and result-oriented efforts by private and public officials to correct the unequal distribution of economic opportunity and education attributed to slavery, segregation, poverty and racism. Opponents argue that affirmative action (1) violates ideals of color-blind public policies, offending moral principles of fairness and constitutional principles of equality and due process; (2) has proven to be socially and politically divisive; (3) has not made things better; (4) mainly benefits middle-class, wealthy (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Ernie Alleva (1990). Democracy and the Welfare State, Amy Gutmann (Editor). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988, Ix + 290 Pages. [REVIEW] Economics and Philosophy 6 (02):322-.
  8. Sudhir Anand, Fabienne Peter & Amartya Sen (eds.) (2004). Public Health, Ethics, and Equity. OUP.
    These are some of the important questions that this book addresses in building an interdisciplinary understanding of health equity. (Midwest).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Elizabeth Anderson (1995). Inequality Reexamined, Sen Amartya. Harvard University Press, 1992, 207 + Xiv Pages. Economics and Philosophy 11 (01):182-.
  10. Chris Armstrong (2014). Justice and Attachment to Natural Resources. Journal of Political Philosophy 22 (1):48-65.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Dick Arneson, The Welfarist Strikes Back.
    In chapter 1 of Sovereign Virtue Ronald Dworkin argues against the claim that insofar as we care about distributive equality (equality in the distribution of resources to be privately owned), what we should care about is equality of welfare. This says that a distribution of resources in a society is equal just in case it results in all members of society having the same level of welfare (utility, well-being, personal good).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. R. J. Arneson (2010). Book Review: Disadvantage, Capability, Commensurability, and Policy. [REVIEW] Politics, Philosophy and Economics 9 (3):339-357.
    (No abstract is available for this citation).
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Richard Arneson, Distributive Justice and Basic Capability Equality: 'Good Enough' is Not Good Enough Richard J. Arneson.
    Amartya Sen is a renowned economist who has also made important contributions to philosophical thinking about distributive justice. These contributions tend to take the form of criticism of inadequate positions and insistence on making distinctions that will promote clear thinking about the topic. Sen is not shy about making substantive normative claims, but thus far he has avoided commitment to a theory of justice, in the sense of a set of principles that specifies what facts are relevant for policy choice (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Richard Arneson, Real Freedom and Distributive Justice.
    Here is a picture of a society that one might suppose to be ideally just in its distributive practices: All members of the society are equally free to live in any way that they might choose, and institutions are arranged so that the equal freedom available to all is at the highest feasible level. What, if anything, is wrong with this picture? One might object against the insistence on equal freedom for all and propose that freedom should instead be maximinned, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Richard Arneson, Rawls, Responsibility, and Distributive Justice.
    The theory of justice pioneered by John Rawls explores a simple idea--that the concern of distributive justice is to compensate individuals for misfortune. Some people are blessed with good luck, some are cursed with bad luck, and it is the responsibility of society--all of us regarded collectively--to alter the distribution of goods and evils that arises from the jumble of lotteries that constitutes human life as we know it. Some are lucky to be born wealthy, or into a favorable socializing (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Richard Arneson (2000). Economic Analysis Meets Distributive Justice. Social Theory and Practice 26 (2):327-345.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Richard J. Arneson, Disadvantage, Capability, Commensurability, and Policy.
    In their excellent book Disadvantage, Jonathan Wolff and Avner de-Shalit (hereafter: the Authors) state that their aim “is to provide practical guidance to policy makers by providing a version of egalitarian theory which can be applied to actual social policy.”1 This is a worthy project and their execution of it is full of insight. However, I doubt that they succeed in fulfilling their stated aim.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Richard J. Arneson, Distributive Justice and Basic Capability Equality: 'Good Enough' is Not Good Enough.
    Amartya Sen is a renowned economist who has also made important contributions to philosophical thinking about distributive justice. These contributions tend to take the form of criticism of inadequate positions and insistence on making distinctions that will promote clear thinking about the topic. Sen is not shy about making substantive normative claims, but thus far he has avoided commitment to a theory of justice, in the sense of a set of principles that specifies what facts are relevant for policy choice (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Richard J. Arneson, Whatever of What?
    In 1980, Amartya Sen’s essay ‘Equality of What?’ stimulated a still ongoing discussion on the question: ‘Insofar as one holds that social justice demands rendering people’s condition more nearly equal, what aspects of people’s condition should be equalized?’ (Sen, 1982). In what respects should people be rendered more nearly the same? Prominent responses include resources, fundamental liberties, capabilities, advantages, welfare, and opportunities for welfare.1 There is a more general question in this neighbourhood that should be of interest. We might conceive (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Richard J. Arneson (2000). Economic Analysis Meets Distributive Justice. Social Theory and Practice 26 (2):327-345.
    Some of the best philosophers do not hold academic appointments in philosophy departments. Wouldn't you rather have the ghost of Frank Ramsey (the Cambridge mathematician who died in the 1920s) as a hall mate instead of some of your current colleagues? Confining our attention to the living, we find some economists among the more philosophically inclined intellectuals. The best of these fellow traveling economistphilosophers are the Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen and also John Roemer. In the early 1980s Roemer did (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. N. Scott Arnold (1988). Reply to Professor Putterman. Economics and Philosophy 4 (02):337-.
  22. N. Scott Arnold (1987). Final Reply to Professor Schweickart. Economics and Philosophy 3 (02):335-.
  23. N. Scott Arnold (1987). Further Thoughts on the Degeneration of Market Socialism: A Reply to Schweickart. Economics and Philosophy 3 (02):320-.
  24. Gustaf Arrhenius, Meritarian Axiologies and Distributive Justice.
    in . T. Rønnow-Rasmussen, B. Petersson, J. Josefsson & D. Egonsson (eds.) Hommage à Wlodek: Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz, 2007.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. J. Atherton (1998). Book Reviews : Economic Justice: Selections From 'Distributive Justice' and 'A Living Wage', by John A. Ryan (1869-1945), Edited by Harlan R. Beckley. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. 186 Pp. Pb. US$29. ISBN 0-664-25660-. [REVIEW] Studies in Christian Ethics 11 (1):115-118.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Daniel Attas (2008). The Difference Principle and Time. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (2):209-232.
    Rawls's difference principle contains a certain normative ambiguity, so that opposing views, including strong inegalitarian ones, might find a home under it. The element that introduces this indeterminacy is the absence of an explicit reference to time . Thus, a society that agrees on the difference principle as the proper justification of basic political-economic institutions, might nevertheless disagree on whether their specific institutions are justified by that principle. Such disagreement would most often centre on issues of fact: will a more (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Daniel Attas & Avner de-Shalit (2004). Workfare: The Subjection of Labour. Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (3):309-320.
    When viewed as a question of distributive justice the evaluation of workfare typically reflects exclusively on the distribution of income: do the physically capable have a justified claim for state support, or is it fair to demand from those who do work to subsidise this support? Rarely is workfare appraised in terms of how it affects other parties such as employers or other workers, and on the structural effects the pattern of incentives it generates brings about, or as an issue (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Robin Attfield (1984). Work and the Human Essence. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1 (1):141-150.
    Jenkins and Sherman hold that belief in the value of work is artificially inculcated and that a ‘leisure society’ is desirable and possible, as well as being necessitated by the introduction of microprocessors. After distinguishing between meaningful work and labour (first section), I reply obliquely to their case by contending that meaningful work affords most people their best chance of the necessary good of self-respect (second section), and that it constitutes the exercise of an essential human capacity, the development of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Roland Axtmann (2009). In Between: Immigration, Distributive Justice, and Political Dialogue. Contemporary Political Theory 8 (4):415-434.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Friedrich Baerwald (1935). Social Justice and the Distribution of Wealth. Thought 10 (3):480-500.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Doris J. Baker & Mary A. Paterson (1994). Distributive Justice and the Regulation of Fertility Centers: An Analysis of the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 3 (03):383-.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. William Banner (1979). Reverse Discrimination: Misconception and Confusion. Journal of Social Philosophy 10 (1):15-18.
  33. Keith Banting & Will Kymlicka (eds.) (2006). Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies. OUP Oxford.
    In many Western democracies, ethnic and racial minorities have demanded, and sometimes achieved, greater recognition and accommodation of their identities. This is reflected in the adoption of multiculturalism policies for immigrant groups, the acceptance of territorial autonomy and language rights for national minorities, and the recognition of land claims and self-government rights for indigenous peoples. These claims for recognition have been controversial, in part because of fears that they make it more difficult to sustain a robust welfare state by eroding (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Will Barrett (2006). Luck and Decision. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (1):73–87.
    Much recent work on moral responsibility and on distributive justice has addressed the concept of luck. Very little attention has been given to the relation of luck to rationality. How does luck bear on our choices? Can beliefs about luck lead to unwise decisions? These questions have particular relevance for understanding gambling behaviour, and for public policy on gambling. In this paper I argue that no one is reliably lucky, and that projecting luck can undermine rational decision-making. I give various (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Brian Barry (2003). Capitalists Rule. Ok? A Commentary on Keith Dowding. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 2 (3):323-341.
    In response to criticisms made by Keith Dowding (hereafter KD) of `Capitalists Rule OK', this article argues (1) that there is a genuine structural conflict of interest between consumers and producers, voters and politicians, and capitalists and governments, and (2) that only by ad hoc and arbitrary limitations on the scope of the concept of power can it be denied that consumers collectively have power over producers and capitalists (collectively) have power over government. KD accepts that voters (collectively) have power (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Brian Barry (2002). Capitalists Rule Ok? Some Puzzles About Power. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1 (2):155-184.
    Even if we do not observe those who own or manage capital doing anything, are there nevertheless good reasons for saying that they have power over government? My thesis is that, on any analysis of `power over others' that enables us to say that voters have power over those elected and that consumers have power over producers, we also have to say that those who own or control capital have power over government. Conversely, the reasons that can be given (and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Stanley Bates (1968). Book Review:Distributive Justice. Nicholas Rescher. [REVIEW] Ethics 78 (2):165-.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Keith Bauer (2003). Distributive Justice and Rural Healthcare. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):241-252.
    People living in rural areas make up 20 percent of the U.S. population, but only 9 percent of physicians practice there. This uneven distribution is significant because rural areas have higher percentages of people in poverty, elderly people, people lacking health insurance coverage, and people with chronic diseases. As a way of ameliorating these disparities, e-health initiatives are being implemented. But the rural e-health movement raises its own set of distributive justice concerns about the digital divide. Moreover, even if the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Sebastiano Bavetta (2009). Discretionary Time: A New Measure of Freedom , Robert Goodin, James Mahmud Rice, Antti Parpo, and Lina Eriksson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 484 Pages. [REVIEW] Economics and Philosophy 25 (3):384-389.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Kenneth Baynes (2005). Ethos and Institution: On the Site of Distributive Justice. Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (2):182–196.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. John H. Beck (2005). Distributive Justice and the Rules of the Corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (3):355-362.
    Progressives have advocated reforms of rules governing corporations to achieve greater distributive justice, but Maitland (2001) hasargued that corporate rules are distributively neutral and that changing the rules will have no long run impact on distributive justice. These different conclusions stem from the use of two different methods of economic analysis, partial equilibrium and general equilibrium models. A change in the rules governing corporations in a “large” sector of the economy is appropriately analyzed using a general equilibrium analysis, supporting the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Holly Bell (2013). Street Practice: Changing the Lens on Poverty and Public Assistance. Ethics and Social Welfare 8 (1):1-2.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Solomon R. Benatar (2001). Distributive Justice and Clinical Trials in the Third World. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (3):169-176.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Christopher Bertram (1993). Principles of Distributive Justice, Counterfactuals and History. Journal of Political Philosophy 1 (3):213–228.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. P. Bou-Habib (2013). Parental Subsidies: The Argument From Insurance. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (2):197-216.
    This article develops the argument that the state must provide parental subsidies if, and to the extent that, individuals would, under certain specified hypothetical conditions, purchase ‘insurance cover’ that would provide the funds they need for adequate childrearing. I argue that most citizens would sign up to an insurance scheme, in which they receive a guarantee of a means-tested parental subsidy in return for an obligation to pay a progressive income tax to fund the scheme. This argument from insurance bolsters (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Paul Bou-Habib (2011). Distributive Justice, Dignity, and the Lifetime View. Social Theory and Practice 37 (2):285-310.
    This paper provides a critical examination of the strongest defenses of the pure lifetime view, according to which justice requires taking only people's whole lives as relevant when assessing and establishing their distributive entitlements and obligations. The paper proposes that we reject a pure lifetime view and replace it with an alternative view, on which some time-specific considerations--that is to say, considerations about how people fare at specific points in time--have nonderivative weight in determining what our obligations are to them.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. David Boucher (2006). Thin Universalism and Distributive Justice. In B. A. Haddock, Peri Roberts & Peter Sutch (eds.), Principles and Political Order: The Challenge of Diversity. Routledge.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Luc Bovens & Marc Fleurbaey (2012). Evaluating Life or Death Prospects. Economics and Philosophy 28 (2):217-249.
    We consider a special set of risky prospects in which the outcomes are either life or death (or, more generally, binary utilities). There are various alternatives to the utilitarian objective of minimizing the expected loss of lives in such prospects. We start off with the two-person case with independent risks and construct taxonomies of ex ante and ex post evaluations for such prospects. We examine the relationship between the ex ante and the ex post in this restrictive framework: There are (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Norman E. Bowie (1970). Equality and Distributive Justice. Philosophy 45 (172):140 - 148.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Michael Boylan (2007). Medical Pharmaceuticals and Distributive Justice. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 17 (01):30-44.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 664