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

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  78
    Benjamin Sachs (2012). The Limits of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Philosophical Studies 160 (2):323-343.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Robert S. Taylor (2004). Self-Realization and the Priority of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (3):333-347.
    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 (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  3.  14
    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.
    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 (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  4.  76
    Larry A. Alexander (1985). Fair Equality of Opportunity. Philosophy Research Archives 11:197-208.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5.  24
    Mark Navin (2008). Fair Equality of Opportunity in Global Justice. Social Philosophy Today 24:39-52.
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  18
    Gert Jan van der Wilt (1994). Health Care and the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Bioethics 8 (4):329–349.
    ABSTRACTIn The Netherlands, the public funding of a number of health care services is controversial. What can we learn from this about the moral concerns that underlie these judgements? And, if there is anything to learn, can we use this improved understanding to scrutinise the adequacy of particular decisions concerning the public funding of health care services? In the present paper, I will analyse three cases: corrective surgey, In Vitro Fertilisation and liver transplantation. I will summarise the arguments that have (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. H. Tristram Engelhardt, Fair Equality of Opportunity Critically Reexamined: The Family and the Sustainability of Health Care Systems.
    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 (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  55
    Oliver Feeney (2006). Equality of Whom? A Genetic Perspective on Equality (of Opportunity). Res Publica 12 (4):357-383.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  6
    Douglas MacKay (forthcoming). Fair Subject Selection in Clinical Research: Formal Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Medical Ethics.
    In this paper, I explore the ethics of subject selection in the context of biomedical research. I reject a key principle of what I shall refer to as the standard view. According to this principle, investigators should select participants so as to minimise aggregate risk to participants and maximise aggregate benefits to participants and society. On this view, investigators should exclude prospective participants who are more susceptible to risk than other prospective participants. I argue instead that investigators should select subjects (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Seana Valentine Shiffrin (2004). Race, Labor, and the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle. Fordham Law Review 1643-1675 (2004) 72 (5):1643-1675.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11.  21
    Ronald M. Green (2001). Access to Healthcare: Going Beyond Fair Equality of Opportunity. American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):22 – 23.
  12.  4
    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.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  8
    Nani L. Ranken (1986). Compensation Vs. Fair Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 3 (1):111-122.
  14.  3
    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.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  65
    Norman Daniels (1985). Fair Equality of Opportunity and Decent Minimums: A Reply to Buchanan. Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 (1):106-110.
  16.  9
    Gert Jan van Der Wilt (1994). Health Care and the Principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity. Bioethics 8 (4):329-349.
  17.  31
    Donald Mackinnon (1986). Equality of Opportunity as Fair and Open Competition. Journal of Philosophy of Education 20 (1):69–72.
  18.  26
    Matt Cavanagh (2002). Against Equality of Opportunity. Clarendon Press.
    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 should be allocated, whatever that happens to be. Matt Cavanagh offers a highly provocative and original new view, suggesting that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  19.  12
    Eszter Kollar & Michele Loi (2015). Prenatal Equality of Opportunity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 32 (1):35-49.
    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 . 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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  53
    By Andrew Mason (2004). Equality of Opportunity and Differences in Social Circumstances. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):368–388.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  21.  51
    Ovadia Ezra (2007). Equality of Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (1):22-37.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  5
    Andrew Mason (2004). Equality of Opportunity and Differences in Social Circumstances. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):368 - 388.
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Matt Cavanagh (2002). Against Equality of Opportunity. Oxford University Press Uk.
    'It is true that Against Equality of Opportunity is a contrarian book - and all the better for that' John Gray, The Independent, Thursday Book, 14 Feb'02These 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 (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. 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.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Michele Loi, Lorenzo Del Savio & Elia Stupka (2013). Social Epigenetics and Equality of Opportunity. Public Health Ethics 6 (2):142-153.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  26. Harry Brighouse (2007). Equality of Opportunity and Complex Equality: The Special Place of Schooling. [REVIEW] Res Publica 13 (2):147-158.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  33
    Bernie Grummell (2007). The 'Second Chance' Myth: Equality of Opportunity in Irish Adult Education Policies. British Journal of Educational Studies 55 (2):182 - 201.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  31
    Govind Persad (2015). Equality Via Mobility: Why Socioeconomic Mobility Matters for Relational Equality, Distributive Equality, and Equality of Opportunity. Social Philosophy and Policy 31 (2):158-179.
    This essay examines the connection between socioeconomic mobility and equality, and argues for two conclusions: -/- Socioeconomic mobility is conceptually distinct from three common species of equality: (1) equality of opportunity, (2) equality of outcome, and (3) relational equality. However, socioeconomic mobility is connected — in different ways — to each species of equality, and, if we value one or more of these species of equality, these connections endow it with derivative normative (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Matthias Hild & Alex Voorhoeve (2004). Equality of Opportunity and Opportunity Dominance. Economics and Philosophy 20 (1):117-145.
    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 (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  30. Rodney G. Peffer (2008). A Modified Rawlsian Theory of Social Justice: “Justice as Fair Rights”. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 50:593-608.
    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 and Justice as Fairness Rawls explicitly refers to my version of his theory, clearly accepting three of my four proposed modifications but rejecting the fourth (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  78
    Neven Petrović (2009). Equality of Opportunity and Personal Identity. Acta Analytica 24 (2):97-111.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  91
    Robert S. Taylor (2011). Reconstructing Rawls: The Kantian Foundations of Justice as Fairness. Penn State University Press.
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  33.  48
    Zoltan Miklosi (2010). How Does the Difference Principle Make a Difference? Res Publica 16 (3):263-280.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. R. J. Arneson (1999). Equality of Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted. Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4):488–497.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   21 citations  
  35. Gillian Brock (2005). The Difference Principle, Equality of Opportunity, and Cosmopolitan Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (3):333-351.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  36.  45
    Alexander Brown (2006). Equality of Opportunity for Education: One-Off or Lifelong? Journal of Philosophy of Education 40 (1):63–84.
    Adult education has long been the Cinderella of the education system. This is not helped by the fact that there is currently an impasse between employers, government and individuals over who should finance such training. So what, if anything, can philosophers do to help resolve the normative question of who ought to pay, setting aside for the moment the practical question of how this might be put into effect? An important strand of contemporary egalitarian philosophy argues that equality of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  37. Darrel Moellendorf (2006). Equality of Opportunity Globalized? Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 19 (2).
    The principle of global equality of opportunity is an important part of the commitment to global egalitarianism. In this paper I discuss how a principle of global equality of opportunity follows from a commitment to equal respect for the autonomy of all persons, and defend the principle against some of the criticism that it has received. The particular criticisms that I address contend that a moral view based upon dignity and respect cannot take properties of persons—such (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  38.  31
    Julian Savulescu (2001). Justice and Healthcare: The Right to a Decent Minimum, Not Equality of Opportunity. American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):1a-3a.
    (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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  39.  61
    John E. Roemer (2012). On Several Approaches to Equality of Opportunity. Economics and Philosophy 28 (2):165-200.
    The formal theory of equality of opportunity emerged as a response to Ronald Dworkin's 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 proposal is the most satisfactory approach. Inherent in that generalization is an indeterminism, which reflects a philosophical problem: (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40.  12
    Michele Loi, Lorenzo Del Savio & Elia Stupka (2013). Social Epigenetics and Equality of Opportunity. Public Health Ethics 6 (2):142-153.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  78
    Mathias Risse (2002). What Equality of Opportunity Could Not Be. Ethics 112 (4):720-747.
    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 (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42.  3
    Robert Bender (2016). Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity and Intergenerational Mobility [Book Review]. Australian Humanist, The 121:22.
    Bender, Robert Review of: Income inequality, equality of opportunity and intergenerational mobility, by Miles Corak, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn University, 2013, 32 pages.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  22
    Bernard R. Boxil (1987). Global Equality of Opportunity and National Integrity. Social Philosophy and Policy 5 (1):143.
    Philosophers have long distinguished various interpretations of the principle of equal opportunity and argued over their implications and justifications. But they have almost always tacitly assumed that the context was a national one. They have not, in particular, considered whether some interpretation of the principle could apply and be justified globally, that is, to all people without regard to their nationality or citizenship. Yet, such an investigation is clearly demanded. The leading moral theories seem to support a case for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  44.  16
    Barry R. Gross (1987). Real Equality of Opportunity. Social Philosophy and Policy 5 (1):120.
    We are often told that we are morally obligated to produce equal opportunity for all. Therefore, it seems we should examine what power we have to produce that desirable state. For it would be nonsense to say we are required to provide what is beyond our power to provide. When we examine this question, we find our power limited by two sets of constraints. One set comprises formal constraints upon the idea itself of equal opportunity. We cannot do (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45.  5
    S. Bedi (2014). The Scope of Formal Equality of Opportunity: The Horizontal Effect of Rights in a Liberal Constitution. Political Theory 42 (6):716-738.
    Should a liberal constitution constrain the racially discriminatory actions of state as well as nonstate employers? This essay answers in the affirmative, arguing that once we take seriously the right to nondiscrimination on the basis of race in terms of employment, we realize that such a constitution must constrain the actions of both. In doing so, this essay draws from John Rawls’s four-stage sequence, a sequence that suggests one way philosophical principles translate into constitutional design. A Theory of Justice is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  3
    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.
    (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.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. 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.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  97
    Liam Shields (2013). From Rawlsian Autonomy to Sufficient Opportunity in Education. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1 (1):1470594-13505413.
    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 should (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  29
    Michele Loi (2012). Germ-Line Enhancements and Rough Equality. Ethical Perspectives 19 (1):55-82.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  18
    Mario Toboso (2011). Rethinking Disability in Amartya Sen's Approach: ICT and Equality of Opportunity. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 13 (2):107-118.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000