Online research in philosophy

It is a commonsense view held by many citizens in democratic nations that whether or not a society is socially just depends on the nature of these major institutions and their functioning. On this view, social justice is so to with what philosophers have referred to as “realized, rather than abstract, institutions,” rather than, say, individual character or actions. I will examine one sensible sounding argument in support of this view, which I will call “The Effects Argument.” It is deceptively (...) simple in appearance and based on the claim that major social institutions have profound effects on the lives of individuals, effects that are far more significant and far-reaching than those typically brought about by individual action. Because of this vast potential, securing social justice means focusing on such major social institutions and on how they function. In short, social justice is the business and responsibility of those major institutions. Examining this argument, however, provides support for a wider vision of what is involved in achieving social justice and raises concern about the diminishing role of the individual in much of contemporary writings on social justice. Paradoxically, citizens in democratic states are especially in danger of expecting major social institutions to carry a loadthey cannot successfully bear. (shrink)

The one sphere of life where a claimed right to privacy is most sympathetically received is in the inner realm of the mind. I will look briefly at Joseph Tussman’s claim that a government is not only entitled but morally required to be concerned with and involved in the minds of the nation’s citizens. I then further explore reasons why the realm of the mind matters not only morally but politically. There are consequentialist reasons, but more interestingly there are non-consequentialist (...) reasons on the basis of which I introduce the concept of “authentic social justice.” In particular, there are relevant insights to be gainedby reflecting on forms of oppression that are subtle but serious in nature, forms that involve neither violence nor the use of law. (shrink)

This paper examines one approach to the ethics of companion animals, which emerges from the dominant historical tradition and is increasingly familiar in everyday life as well as in work on companion animals in the social sciences. I label it the “utilization with welfare-safeguards” model, or, more gently worded, “seeking benefits while ensuring welfare.” Some of the “benefits” considered are complex ones (like guiding the sight impaired) and others simpler (like reducing stress or providing affection). I explore several problems involved (...) in this approach (including the sometimes jarring inappropriateness of “benefit” terminology). I then offer an alternative account where the primary moral obligation toward companion animals is to develop, nurture, respect, and protect the loving relationship between them and their human companions, since thriving in such a relationship, I claim, has become part of their evolved telos (to use Bernard Rollin’s term)or evolved nature. This priority naturally leads to ensuring welfare, but the highly pro-active approach involved takes the obligation beyond standard welfare provision and “TLC” (“tender loving care”). Some implications of this position are explored. (shrink)

It is a commonsense view held by many citizens in democratic nations that whether or not a society is socially just depends on the nature of these major institutions and their functioning. On this view, social justice is so to with what philosophers have referred to as “realized, rather than abstract, institutions,” rather than, say, individual character or actions. I will examine one sensible sounding argument in support of this view, which I will call “The Effects Argument.” It is deceptively (...) simple in appearance and based on the claim that major social institutions have profound effects on the lives of individuals, effects that are far more significant and far-reaching than those typically brought about by individual action. Because of this vast potential, securing social justice means focusing on such major social institutions and on how they function. In short, social justice is the business and responsibility of those major institutions. Examining this argument, however, provides support for a wider vision of what is involved in achieving social justice and raises concern about the diminishing role of the individual in much of contemporary writings on social justice. Paradoxically, citizens in democratic states are especially in danger of expecting major social institutions to carry a loadthey cannot successfully bear. (shrink)