Res Publica 16 (3):281-298 (2010)
|Abstract||John Rawls famously claims that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’. On one of its readings, this remark seems to suggest that social institutions are essential for obligations of justice to arise. The spirit of this interpretation has recently sparked a new debate about the grounds of justice. What are the conditions that generate principles of distributive justice? I am interested in a specific version of this question. What conditions generate egalitarian principles of distributive justice and give rise to equality as a demand of justice? My paper focuses on relationalist answers to this question. Advocates of relationalism assume that ‘principles of distributive justice have a relational basis’, in the sense that ‘practice mediated relations in which individuals stand condition the content, scope and justification of those principles’. To say that principles of justice are ‘based’ on and ‘conditioned’ by practice mediated relations is ambiguous. I will here be concerned with advocates of what I call the relationalist requirement , viz. positions which assume that ‘practice mediated relations’ constitute a necessary existence condition for principles of egalitarian distributive justice. Relationalists who endorse this view come in different varieties. My focus is on relationalists that view social and political institutions as the relevant ‘practice mediated relation’. The question at stake, then, is this: Are institutionally mediated relations a necessary condition for equality to arise as a demand of justice? Strong relationalists of the institutionalist cast, call them advocates of the institutionalist requirement , differ in important respects. They argue about what set of institutions is foundationally significant, and they disagree on why only that institutional relation gives rise to egalitarian obligations of justice. My paper engages two ways of arguing for the institutionalist requirement : Julius’s framing argument and Andrea Sangiovanni’s reciprocity argument . The issue at stake are the grounds of egalitarian justice and I will argue that the institutionalist requirement is mistaken. It is not the case that egalitarian obligations of distributive justice arise only between and solely in virtue of individuals sharing a common institution|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Simon Caney (2011). Humanity, Associations and Global Justice: A Defence of Humanity-Centred Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism. The Monist 94 (4):506-534.
Kok-Chor Tan (2012). Justice, Institutions, and Luck: The Site, Ground, and Scope of Equality. OUP Oxford.
András Miklós (2011). The Basic Structure and the Principles of Justice. Utilitas 23 (2):161-182.
Chris Armstrong (2009). Global Egalitarianism. Philosophy Compass 4 (1):155-171.
Michael Otsuka (2010). Justice as Fairness: Luck Egalitarian, Not Rawlsian. Journal of Ethics 14 (3-4):217-230.
Kok-Chor Tan (2010). Global Justice and Global Relations. Social Theory and Practice 36 (3):499-514.
Christian Schemmel (2011). Why Relational Egalitarians Should Care About Distributions. Social Theory and Practice 37 (3):365-390.
Bruce Landesman (2012). Brock’s Cosmopolitanism: Sensible but Incomplete. Diametros 31 (31):146-156.
Jonathan Quong (2007). Contractualism, Reciprocity, and Egalitarian Justice. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (1):75-105.
Daniel M. Weinstock (ed.) (2007). Global Justice, Global Institutions. University of Calgary Press.
Steven Wall (2012). Backing Away From Equality. Criminal Justice Ethics 31 (2):96-105.
Andrew Lister (2013). Reciprocity, Relationships, and Distributive Justice. Social Theory and Practice 39 (1):70-94.
Ian Hunt (2011). How Egalitarian is Rawls's Theory of Justice? Philosophical Papers 39 (2):155-181.
Added to index2010-11-17
Total downloads60 ( #15,907 of 548,970 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,091 of 548,970 )
How can I increase my downloads?