Graduate studies at Western
Oxford University Press (2002)
|Abstract||The debate between impartialists and their critics has dominated both moral and political philosophy for over a decade. Characteristically, impartialists argue that any sensible form of impartialism can accommodate the partial concerns we have for others. By contrast, partialists deny that this is so. They see the division as one which runs exceedingly deep and argue that, at the limit, impartialist thinking requires that we marginalise those concerns and commitments that make our lives meaningful. This book attempts to show both that the dispute between impartialists and their critics runs very deep, and that it can nonetheless be resolved. The resolution begins by asking how impartialist political philosophy can defend the priority of justice when it conflicts with people's commitments to their conceptions of the good. It is argued that priority can only defended if political impartialism has a moral foundation, and that moral foundation must not be a foundation in the ideal of equality (as is often thought), but a foundation in the partial concerns we have for others. In short, impartialist moral philosophy must take our partial concerns as central if it is to gain allegiance. However, if it does take our partial concerns as central, then it can generate a defence of political impartialism which shows why justice must take priority, but which also acknowledges that pluralism about the good is permanent.|
|Keywords||Justice Fairness Political science Philosophy Ethics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$51.98 used (48% off) $82.02 new (18% off) $88.15 direct from Amazon (11% off) Amazon page|
|Call number||JC578.M437 2002|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
F. Freyenhagen (2011). Taking Reasonable Pluralism Seriously: An Internal Critique of Political Liberalism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (3):323-342.
Alexander Kaufman (2006). Rawls's Practical Conception of Justice: Opinion, Tradition and Objectivity in Political Liberalism. Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (1):23-43.
Enzo Rossi (2012). Justice, Legitimacy, and (Normative) Authority for Political Realists. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (2):149-164.
Sylvia Burrow (2001). Reasonable Moral Psychology and the Kantian Ace in the Hole. Social Philosophy Today 17:37-55.
Ryan W. Davis (2011). Justice: Metaphysical, After All? [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):207-222.
Ruth Abbey (2007). Back Toward a Comprehensive Liberalism? Justice as Fairness, Gender, and Families. Political Theory 35 (1):5 - 28.
Paul Smith (2008). Moral and Political Philosophy: Key Issues, Concepts and Theories. Palgrave Macmillan.
Monique Deveaux (2003). Susan Mendus, Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy:Impartiality in Moral and Political Philosophy. Ethics 113 (4):895-898.
Percy B. Lehning (1998). The Coherence of Rawls's Plea for Democratic Equality. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1 (4):1-41.
Jon Mahoney (2004). Public Reason and the Moral Foundation of Liberalism. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3):311-331.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #55,684 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?