Search results for 'fair equality of opportunity' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Benjamin Sachs (2012). The Limits of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Philosophical Studies 160 (2):323-343.score: 1224.0
    The principle of fair equality of opportunity is regularly used to justify social policies, both in the philosophical literature and in public discourse. However, too often commentators fail to make explicit just what they take the principle to say. A principle of fair equality of opportunity does not say anything at all until certain variables are filled in. I want to draw attention to two variables, timing and currency. I argue that once we identify (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Oliver Feeney (2006). Equality of Whom? A Genetic Perspective on Equality (of Opportunity). Res Publica 12 (4):357-383.score: 963.0
    Rawls’ principle of fair equality of opportunity has been regularly discussed and criticized for being inadequate regarding natural inequalities. In so far as this egalitarian goal is sound, the purpose of the paper is to see how the prospect of radical genetic intervention might affect this particular inadequacy. I propose that, in a post-genetic setting, an appropriate response would be to extend the same rules regulating societal inequalities to a regulation of comparable genetic inequalities. I defend this (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Robert S. Taylor (2004). Self-Realization and the Priority of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3):333-347.score: 828.0
    The lexical priority of fair equality of opportunity in John Rawls’s justice as fairness, which has been sharply criticized by Larry Alexander and Richard Arneson among others, is left almost entirely undefended in Rawls’s works. I argue here that this priority rule can be successfully defended against its critics despite Rawls’s own doubts about it. Using the few textual clues he provides, I speculatively reconstruct his defense of this rule, showing that it can be grounded on our (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. H. T. Engelhardt (2012). Fair Equality of Opportunity Critically Reexamined: The Family and the Sustainability of Health Care Systems. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (6):583-602.score: 828.0
    A complex interaction of ideological, financial, social, and moral factors makes the financial sustainability of health care systems a challenge across the world. One difficulty is that some of the moral commitments of some health care systems collide with reality. In particular, commitments to equality in access to health care and to fair equality of opportunity undergird an unachievable promise, namely, to provide all with the best of basic health care. In addition, commitments to fair (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Larry A. Alexander (1985). Fair Equality of Opportunity. Philosophy Research Archives 11:197-208.score: 816.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Mark Navin (2008). Fair Equality of Opportunity in Global Justice. Social Philosophy Today 24:39-52.score: 816.0
    Many political philosophers argue that a principle of ‘fair equality of opportunity’ (FEO) ought to extend beyond national borders. I agree that there is a place for FEO in a theory of global justice. However, I think that the idea of cross-border FEO is indeterminate between three different principles. Part of my work in this paper is methodological: I identify three different principles of cross-border fair equality of opportunity and I distinguish them from each (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Robert S. Taylor (2011). Reconstructing Rawls: The Kantian Foundations of Justice as Fairness. Penn State University Press.score: 684.0
    With the publication of A Theory of Justice in 1971, John Rawls not only rejuvenated contemporary political philosophy but also defended a Kantian form of Enlightenment liberalism called “justice as fairness.” Enlightenment liberalism stresses the development and exercise of our capacity for autonomy, while Reformation liberalism emphasizes diversity and the toleration that encourages it. These two strands of liberalism are often mutually supporting, but they conflict in a surprising number of cases, whether over the accommodation of group difference, the design (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Ronald M. Green (2001). Access to Healthcare: Going Beyond Fair Equality of Opportunity. American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):22 – 23.score: 624.0
  9. Nani L. Ranken (1986). Compensation Vs. Fair Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 3 (1):111-122.score: 624.0
  10. L. Jacobs (2009). Rawls's Commitment to Fair Equality of Opportunity: Rethinking His Arguments for Democratic Equality Four Decades Later'. In Shaun Young (ed.), Reflections on Rawls: An Assessment of His Legacy. Ashgate. 61--71.score: 624.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Efrat Ram-Tiktin (2014). The Possible Effects of Moral Bioenhancement on Political Privileges and Fair Equality of Opportunity. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):43-44.score: 624.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Donald Mackinnon (1986). Equality of Opportunity as Fair and Open Competition. Journal of Philosophy of Education 20 (1):69–72.score: 615.0
  13. Norman Daniels (1985). Fair Equality of Opportunity and Decent Minimums: A Reply to Buchanan. Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (1):106-110.score: 612.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Zoltan Miklosi (2010). How Does the Difference Principle Make a Difference? Res Publica 16 (3):263-280.score: 612.0
    The paper examines the relationship between the two parts of Rawls’ second principle of justice. More specifically, it explores the ways in which the Difference Principle (DP) may constrain the range of acceptable social arrangements in light of the stated lexical priority of the requirement of fair equality of opportunity (FEO) over the DP. The paper discusses two possibilities. First, it examines the role the DP may play within an institutional scheme that satisfies the requirement of FEO. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Gert Jan van der Wilt (1994). Health Care and the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Bioethics 8 (4):329–349.score: 612.0
  16. Gert Jan van Der Wilt (1994). Health Care and the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Bioethics 8 (4):329-349.score: 612.0
  17. Seana Valentine Shiffrin (2004). Race, Labor, and the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle. Fordham Law Review 1643-1675 (2004) 72 (5):1643-1675.score: 612.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Rodney G. Peffer, A Modified Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice: 'Justice as Fair Rights'.score: 582.0
    In my 1990 work – Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice – I argued for four modifications of Rawls’s principles of social justice and rendered a modified version of his theory in four principles, the first of which is the Basic Rights Principle demanding the protection of people’s security and subsistence rights. In both his Political Liberalism (1993) and Justice as Fairness (2001) Rawls explicitly refers to my version of his theory, clearly accepting three of my four proposed modifications but rejecting (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Eszter Kollar & Michele Loi (2014). Prenatal Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2).score: 567.0
    In this article, we defend a normative theory of prenatal equality of opportunity, based on a critical revision of Rawls's principle of fair equality of opportunity (FEO). We argue that if natural endowments are defined as biological properties possessed at birth and the distribution of natural endowments is seen as beyond the scope of justice, Rawls's FEO allows for inequalities that undermine the social conditions of a property-owning democracy. We show this by considering the foetal (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Richard J. Arneson (1999). Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity. Philosophical Studies 93 (1):77-112.score: 555.0
    According to John Rawls, "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions."1 Like Gaul, justice is tripartite. Rawls affirms an Equal Liberty Principle that guarantees equal basic or constitutional liberties for all citizens and a Difference Principle that requires inequalities in the distribution of certain social and economic benefits, the primary social goods, to be set so that the long-term holdings of primary social goods are maximized for the citizens whose holdings are least. Sandwiched between these two principles is a (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. By Andrew Mason (2004). Equality of Opportunity and Differences in Social Circumstances. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):368–388.score: 552.0
    It is often supposed that the point of equality of opportunity is to create a level playing-field. This is understood in different ways, however. A common proposal is what I call the neutralization view: that people's social circumstances should not differentially affect their life chances in any serious way. I raise problems with this view, before developing an alternative conception of equal opportunity which allows some variations in social circumstances to create differences in life prospects. The meritocratic (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Ovadia Ezra (2007). Equality of Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (1):22-37.score: 552.0
    This paper deals with the policy of affirmative action as an additional means for achieving equality of opportunity in society. It assumes that in modem society-at least in principle-the superior positions are distributed according to merit, and on the basis of fair competition. I argue that formal equality of opportunity injects apparently neutral requirements, such as experience, into the selection procedure for top positions, that, in fact, act particularly against women, since they allow the past (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Matt Cavanagh (2003). Against Equality of Opportunity. Clarendon Press.score: 552.0
    These days almost everyone seems to think it obvious that equality of opportunity is at least part of what constitutes a fair society. At the same time they are so vague about what equality of opportunity actually amounts to that it can begin to look like an empty term, a convenient shorthand for the way jobs (or for that matter university places, or positions of power, or merely places on the local sports team) should be (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Andrew Mason (2004). Equality of Opportunity and Differences in Social Circumstances. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):368 - 388.score: 552.0
    It is often supposed that the point of equality of opportunity is to create a level playing-field. This is understood in different ways, however. A common proposal is what I call the neutralization view: that people's social circumstances should not differentially affect their life chances in any serious way. I raise problems with this view, before developing an alternative conception of equal opportunity which allows some variations in social circumstances to create differences in life prospects. The meritocratic (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Bernie Grummell (2007). The 'Second Chance' Myth: Equality of Opportunity in Irish Adult Education Policies. British Journal of Educational Studies 55 (2):182 - 201.score: 535.5
    This article explores the 'second chance' myth that surrounds the role of adult education in society. This myth apparently offers all citizens an equal chance to access educational opportunities to improve their life chances. I argue that recent developments in educational policy-making are increasingly shaped by neoliberal discourses that adapt adult education principles, such as lifelong learning and emancipation, for its own economic and political logic. This has important implications for adult education, especially equality of opportunity and social (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Harry Brighouse (2007). Equality of Opportunity and Complex Equality: The Special Place of Schooling. [REVIEW] Res Publica 13 (2):147-158.score: 526.5
    This paper is an engagement with Equality by John Baker, Kathleen Lynch, Judy Walsh and Sara Cantillon. It identifies a dilemma for educational egalitarians, which arises within their theory of equality, arguing that sometimes there may be a conflict between advancing equality of opportunity and providing equality of respect and recognition, and equality of love care and solidarity. It argues that the latter values may have more weight in deciding what to do than traditional (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Neven Petrović (2009). Equality of Opportunity and Personal Identity. Acta Analytica 24 (2):97-111.score: 526.5
    One of the central theses of egalitarian liberals in the domain of distributive justice is that talented individuals should not be allowed to keep their entire market-income even if it flows solely from their greater abilities. This claim is usually supported by one of several arguments or some mixture of them, but in the present paper, I want to concentrate on the version that invokes equality of opportunity as its starting point. Namely, it is claimed that every human (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Michele Loi, Lorenzo Del Savio & Elia Stupka (2013). Social Epigenetics and Equality of Opportunity. Public Health Ethics 6 (2):142-153.score: 526.5
    Recent epidemiological reports of associations between socioeconomic status and epigenetic markers that predict vulnerability to diseases are bringing to light substantial biological effects of social inequalities. Here, we start the discussion of the moral consequences of these findings. We firstly highlight their explanatory importance in the context of the research program on the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) and the social determinants of health. In the second section, we review some theories of the moral status of health inequalities. (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Matthias Hild & Alex Voorhoeve (2004). Equality of Opportunity and Opportunity Dominance. Economics and Philosophy 20 (1):117-145.score: 526.5
    All conceptions of equal opportunity draw on some distinction between morally justified and unjustified inequalities. We discuss how this distinction varies across a range of philosophical positions. We find that these positions often advance equality of opportunity in tandem with distributive principles based on merit, desert, consequentialist criteria or individuals' responsibility for outcomes. The result of this amalgam of principles is a festering controversy that unnecessarily diminishes the widespread acceptability of opportunity concerns. We therefore propose to (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Gideon Elford (2013). Equality of Opportunity and Other-Affecting Choice: Why Luck Egalitarianism Does Not Require Brute Luck Equality. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):139-149.score: 495.0
    The luck egalitarian view famously maintains that inequalities in individuals’ circumstances are unfair or unjust, whereas inequalities traceable to individuals’ own responsible choices are fair or just. On this basis, the distinction between so-called brute luck and option luck has been seen as central to luck egalitarianism. Luck egalitarianism is interpreted, by advocates and opponents alike, as a view that condemns inequalities in brute luck but permits inequalities in option luck. It is also thought to be expressed in terms (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Robert S. Taylor (2012). Hate Speech, the Priority of Liberty, and the Temptations of Nonideal Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (3):353-68.score: 474.0
    Are government restrictions on hate speech consistent with the priority of liberty? This relatively narrow policy question will serve as the starting point for a wider discussion of the use and abuse of nonideal theory in contemporary political philosophy, especially as practiced on the academic left. I begin by showing that hate speech (understood as group libel) can undermine fair equality of opportunity for historically-oppressed groups but that the priority of liberty seems to forbid its restriction. This (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Michele Loi (2012). Germ-Line Enhancements and Rough Equality. Ethical Perspectives 19 (1):55-82.score: 474.0
    Enhancements of the human germ-line introduce further inequalities in the competition for scarce goods, such as income and desirable social positions. Social inequalities, in turn, amplify the range of genetic inequalities that access to germ-line enhancements may produce. From an egalitarian point of view, inequalities can be arranged to the benefit of the worst-off group (for instance, through general taxation), but the possibility of an indefinite growth of social and genetic inequality raises legitimate concerns. It is argued that inequalities produced (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Liam Shields (2013). From Rawlsian Autonomy to Sufficient Opportunity in Education. Politics, Philosophy and Economics:1470594-13505413.score: 474.0
    Equality of Opportunity is widely thought of as the normative ideal most relevant to the design of educational institutions. One widely discussed interpretation of this ideal is Rawls' principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity. In this paper I argue that theories, like Rawls , that give priority to the achievement of individual autonomy, are committed to giving that same priority to a principle of sufficient opportunity. Thus, the Rawlsian's primary focus when designing educational institutions (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Juan Espindola & Moises Vaca (2014). The Problem of Historical Rectification for Rawlsian Theory. Res Publica 20 (3):227-243.score: 468.0
    In this paper we claim that Rawls’s theory is compatible with the absence of rectification of extremely important historical injustices within a given society. We hold that adding a new principle to justice-as-fairness may amend this problem. There are four possible objections to our claim: First, that historical rectification is not required by justice. Second, that, even when historical rectification is a matter of justice, it is not a matter of distributive justice, so that Rawls’s theory is justified in leaving (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. John Stone (2002). Race and Healthcare Disparities: Overcoming Vulnerability. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 23 (6):499-518.score: 456.0
    The paper summarizes recently published dataand recommendations about healthcaredisparities experienced by African Americanswho have Medicare or other healthcare coverage.Against this background the paper addresses theethics of such disparities and howdisadvantages of vulnerable populations likeAfrican Americans are typically maintained indecision making about how to respond to suchdisparities. Considering how to respond todisparities reveals much that vulnerablepopulations would bring to the policy-makingtable, if they can also be heard when they getthere. The paper argues that vulnerablepopulations like African Americans need fairrepresentation in bodies (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Nir Eyal & Alex Voorhoeve (2011). Inequalities in HIV Care: Chances Versus Outcomes. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (12):42-44.score: 418.0
    We analyse three moral dilemmas involving resource allocation in care for HIV-positive patients. Ole Norheim and Kjell Arne Johansson have argued that these cases reveal a tension between egalitarian concerns and concerns for better population health. We argue, by contrast, that these cases reveal a tension between, on the one hand, a concern for equal *chances*, and, on the other hand, both a concern for better health and an egalitarian concern for equal *outcomes*. We conclude that, in these cases, there (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Marco Huesch (2012). One and Done? Equality of Opportunity and Repeated Access to Scarce, Indivisible Medical Resources. BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):11-.score: 380.5
    Background: Existing ethical guidelines recommend that, all else equal, past receipt of a medical resource (e.g. a scarce organ) should not be considered in current allocation decisions (e.g. a repeat transplantation).DiscussionOne stated reason for this ethical consensus is that formal theories of ethics and justice do not persuasively accept or reject repeated access to the same medical resources. Another is that restricting attention to past receipt of a particular medical resource seems arbitrary: why couldn't one just as well, it is (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. R. J. Arneson (1999). Equality of Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted. Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4):488–497.score: 360.0
    Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen’s interesting criticisms of the ideal of equality of opportunity for welfare provide a welcome occasion for rethinking the requirements of egalitarian distributive justice.1 In the essay he criticizes I had proposed that insofar as we think distributive justice requires equality of any sort, we should conceive of distributive equality as equal opportunity provision. Roughly put, my suggestion was that equality of opportunity for welfare obtains among a group of people when all (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Gillian Brock (2005). The Difference Principle, Equality of Opportunity, and Cosmopolitan Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (3):333-351.score: 360.0
    What kinds of principles of justice should a cosmopolitan support? In recent years some have argued that a cosmopolitan should endorse a Global Difference Principle. It has also been suggested that a cosmopolitan should support a Principle of Global Equality of Opportunity. In this paper I examine how compelling these two suggestions are. I argue against a Global Difference Principle, but for an alternative Needs-Based Minimum Floor Principle (where these are not co-extensive, as I explain). Though I support (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Julian Savulescu (2001). Justice and Healthcare: The Right to a Decent Minimum, Not Equality of Opportunity. American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):1a-3a.score: 360.0
    (2001). Justice and Healthcare: The Right to a Decent Minimum, Not Equality of Opportunity. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1a-3a.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Irving Thalberg (1980). Themes in the Reverse-Discrimination Debate:The Bakke Case: The Politics of Inequality. Joel Dreyfuss, Charles Lawrence III; Justice and Reverse Discrimination. Alan H. Goldman; Discrimination in Reverse: Is Turnabout Fair Play? Barry R. Gross; Fair Game? Inequality and Affirmative Action. John C. Livingston; Bakke, DeFunis, and Minority Admissions: The Quest for Equal Opportunity. Allan P. Sindler. [REVIEW] Ethics 91 (1):138-.score: 354.0
  42. Mathias Risse (2002). What Equality of Opportunity Could Not Be. Ethics 112 (4):720-747.score: 351.0
    This study is concerned with john R0emer’s Equality of Opportunity} I argue that his theory is committed to compatibilism but that one of its central claims is plausible only within a libertarian view on the free-will problem. Thus Roemer’s theory is troubled by a deep structural inco— herence and should be rejected as an account of equality of opportunity? Let me briefly introduce some background to Roemer’s theory. Contemporary egalitarians face two major challenges: first, they need..
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. John E. Roemer (2012). On Several Approaches to Equality of Opportunity. Economics and Philosophy 28 (2):165-200.score: 351.0
    The formal theory of equality of opportunity emerged as a response to Ronald Dworkin's (1981) characterization of resource egalitarianism, as defined by the allocation that would emerge from insurance contracts arrived at behind a thin veil of ignorance. This article compares several of the prominent versions of this response, put forth in the period 1993–2008. I argue that a generalization of Roemer's (1998) proposal is the most satisfactory approach. Inherent in that generalization is an indeterminism, which reflects a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Michele Loi, Lorenzo Del Savio & Elia Stupka (2013). Social Epigenetics and Equality of Opportunity. Public Health Ethics 6 (2):142-153.score: 351.0
    Recent epidemiological reports of associations between socioeconomic status and epigenetic markers that predict vulnerability to diseases are bringing to light substantial biological effects of social inequalities. Here, we start the discussion of the moral consequences of these findings. We firstly highlight their explanatory importance in the context of the research program on the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) and the social determinants of health. In the second section, we review some theories of the moral status of health inequalities. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Gopal Sreenivasan (2013). Equality, Opportunity, Ambiguity. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 13 (1):1470594-13496071.score: 345.0
    I distinguish four different interpretations of ‘equality of opportunity.’ We get four interpretations because a neglected ambiguity in ‘opportunity’ intersects a well-known ambiguity in ‘equality.’ The neglected ambiguity holds between substantive and non-substantive conceptions of ‘opportunity’ and the well-known ambiguity holds between comparative and non-comparative conceptions of ‘equality.’ Among other things, distinguishing these four interpretations reveals how misleading ‘equal opportunity for advantage’ formulations of luck egalitarianism can be. These formulations are misleading in so (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Amanda Cassity & John Petrovic (2010). “Meaningful Educational Opportunity” May Not Be Equality of Educational Opportunity [Essay Review of the Book Moving Every Child Ahead: From NCLB Hype to Meaningful Educational Opportunity]. Educational Studies 46 (1):116-128.score: 342.0
    (2010). “Meaningful Educational Opportunity” May Not be Equality of Educational Opportunity [Essay Review of the Book Moving Every Child Ahead: From NCLB Hype to Meaningful Educational Opportunity] Educational Studies: Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 116-128.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Dr Patricia Vertinsky (2010). The Evolving Policy of Equal Curricular Opportunity in England: A Case Study of the Implementation of Sex Equality in Physical Education. British Journal of Educational Studies 31 (3):229-251.score: 339.0
    (1983). The evolving policy of equal curricular opportunity in England: A case study of the implementation of sex equality in physical education. British Journal of Educational Studies: Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 229-251.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Mario Toboso (2011). Rethinking Disability in Amartya Sen's Approach: ICT and Equality of Opportunity. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2):107-118.score: 332.3
    This article presents an analysis of the concept of disability in Amartya Sen’s capabilities and functionings approach in the context of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Following a critical review of the concept of disability—from its traditional interpretation as an essentially medical concept to its later interpretation as a socially constructed category—we will introduce the concept of functional diversity. The importance of human diversity in the capabilities and functionings approach calls for incorporating this concept into the analysis of well-being and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Joshua Preiss (2011). Disadvantage and an American Society of Equals. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14 (1):41-58.score: 326.3
    In this article I review Jonathan Wolff and Avner de‐Shalit’s recent book Disadvantage (2007), highlighting its many contributions to egalitarian theory and practice. These contributions build to the authors’ central prescription: that policy‐makers work to create a society of equals by reducing the tendency for disadvantages to cluster around certain individuals or groups. From there, I discuss the idea of declustering disadvantage in an American context, and consider its implications for the politically salient ideal of equality of opportunity. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Lijana Štarienė (2009). The Limits of the Use of Undercover Agents and the Right to a Fair Trial Under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. [REVIEW] Jurisprudence 117 (3):263-284.score: 315.0
    Various special investigative methods are more often applied nowadays; their use is unavoidably induced by today’s reality in combating organised crime in the spheres such as corruption, prostitution, drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, money counterfeit and etc. Therefore, special secret investigative methods are more often used and they are very effective in gathering evidence for the purpose of detecting and investigating very well-organised or latent crimes. Both the Convention on the Protection on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms itself, i.e. its (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000