Being reasonable in the face of pluralism and other alleged problems for Global Justice: a reply to van Hooft
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Global Politics 3 (2):155-170 (2010)
In his recent review essay, Stan van Hooft raises some interesting potential challenges for cosmopolitan global justice projects, of which my version is one example.1 I am grateful to van Hooft for doing so. I hope by responding to these challenges here, others concerned with developing frameworks for analyzing issues of global justice will also learn something of value. I start by giving a very brief synopsis of key themes of my book, Global Justice,2 so I can address van Hooft’s concerns about the structure of the book. I then outline the normative thought experiment that yields the global justice framework I endorse, in order to address five main concerns van Hooft has with it. These center around problems he foresees about what it would be reasonable to agree to in the face of quite different worldviews. There are five specific concerns he identifies related to reasonableness and I address these in the third and fourth sections of this paper. (Published: 26 May 2010) Citation: Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2010, pp. 155-170. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v3i2.5175
|Keywords||reasonable global justice reasonable agreement being reasonable|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stan van Hooft (2009). Gillian Brock, Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account. Ethics and Global Politics 2 (4):369-382.
Burleight T. Wilkins (1997). A Third Principle of Justice. Journal of Ethics 1 (4):355-374.
Remi Odedoyin (2000). Overlapping Consensus. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:323-343.
Stan van Hooft (2011). Humanity or Justice? Journal of Global Ethics 7 (3):291-302.
A. Y. K. Lee (2012). Cosmopolitanism: A Philosophy for Global Ethics * By STAN vAN HOOFT * Globalizing Justice: The Ethics of Poverty and Power * By RICHARD W. MILLER. Analysis 72 (1):202-205.
James Boettcher (2004). What is Reasonableness? Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (5-6):597-621.
B. Ladwig (2013). Global Justice, Cosmopolitanism and Moral Path Dependency. Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (1):3-20.
Jonathan Wolff (2009). Rational, Fair, and Reasonable. Utilitas 8 (3):263.
Gillian Brock (2009). Concerns About Global Justice : A Response to Critics. Journal of Global Ethics 5 (3):269 – 280.
Gillian Brock (2009). Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account. Oxford University Press.
Gillian Brock (2010). Review of Stan Van Hooft, Cosmopolitanism: A Philosophy for Global Ethics. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2010 (1).
Cindy Holder (2012). Justice, Cosmopolitanism and Policy Prescription: Gillian Brock’s "Global Justice". Diametros 31 (31):138-145.
Robert Heeger (2005). Reasonable Partiality to Domestic Animals. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (1-2):123 - 139.
Allison B. Wolf (2005). Can Global Justice Provide a Path Toward Achieving Justice Across the Americas? Journal of Global Ethics 1 (2):153 – 176.
John Pearson (2011). National Responsibility, Global Justice and Exploitation: A Preliminary Analysis. Journal of Global Ethics 7 (3):321-335.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads20 ( #159,945 of 1,780,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #291,797 of 1,780,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?