Year:

  1. Humanity and the Refugee.Noelle Claire McAfee - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:9-26.
    This paper takes up the questions of how the refugee crisis exhibits the fault lines in what might otherwise seem to be a robust human rights regime and what kinds of ways of seeing and thinking might better attune us to solving these problems. There is surprising agreement internationally on the content of human rights, although there is a huge gulf between international agreements on human rights and the protection of those most vital. The subtitle of the paper, “another stab (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  1
    Paternalism, Health and Dietary Choices.Jeffrey M. Brown - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:217-224.
    Paul B. Thompson’s From the Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone explains the growing number of ways that food connects to ethical questions concerning our consumption, production, storage, and distribution of food. Although this book serves as an introduction to food ethics for non-experts, professionals in agricultural science and food production, food activists, and philosophers will have a lot to learn from Thompson’s insight, careful argumentation, and mastery of the economic, scientific, and political issues that ground our current debates (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Participation, Legitimacy, and the Epistemic Dimension of Deliberative Democracy.Jeremy Butler - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:55-72.
    The aim of this paper is to elucidate a significant epistemic dimension of deliberative democracy. I argue that the role of citizens’ political judgments in deliberative democratic theory commits deliberative democracy to a view of deliberation as an essentially epistemic enterprise, one aimed at identifying correct answers to questions of political morality. This epistemic reading stands in contrast to prevailing views of deliberative democracy that tend to hold that the normatively significant function of deliberation is merely to legitimate democratic decisions, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  4
    Is Public Reason a Normalization Project? Deep Diversity and the Open Society.Gerald Gaus - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:27-52.
    At one point Rawls thought that “a normalization of interests attributed to the parties” is “common to social contract doctrines.” Normalization has a great appeal: once we specify the normalized perspective, we can generate strong and definite principles of justice. Public reasoning is restricted to those who reason from the eligible, normalized, perspective; those who fall outside the “normal” are to be dismissed as unreasonable, unjust, or illiberal. As Rawls’s political liberalism project developed he increasingly relaxed his normalization assumptions, allowing (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  1
    Realizing the Power of Socioeconomic Human Rights.Martin Gunderson - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:115-130.
    Human rights are high priority norms that empower right holders to demand the benefits protected by their rights. This is no less true of socioeconomic human rights than civil and political human rights. I argue that realizing human socioeconomic rights requires that they be enacted into state law in such a way that individual right holders have the power to bring legal action in defense of their rights. Contrary to Thomas Pogge, it is not enough for states simply to provide (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Preventing the Anti-Science Blight.Gregory Hoskins - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:201-208.
    Paul Thompson’s From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone is a wonderful book, indeed accessible to a wide audience—to “everyone”—informative, provocative, wide-ranging, and infused by the author’s engaging, knowledgeable, and fair voice. After summarizing what I take to be a few of the appealing general features of the book I will attempt to articulate a genuine puzzle that the book raises for me. The puzzle derives primarily from my personal response to reading chapter 5, “Livestock Welfare and the Ethics (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Impotent Vengeance.Geoffrey Karabin - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:131-153.
    The afterlife has been imagined in a diversity of ways, one of which is as a vehicle for vengeance. Upon outlining, via the figures of Tertullian and Sayyid Qutb, a vengeful formulation of afterlife belief, this essay examines Friedrich Nietzsche’s critique of such a belief. The belief is framed as an expression of impotence insofar as believers imagine in the beyond what they cannot achieve in the present, namely, taking vengeance upon their enemies. Nietzsche’s critique leads to the essay’s central (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. “Non-Idealizing Abstraction” as Ideology.Youjin Kong - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:155-171.
    Recently, social and political philosophers have shown increased interest in the ideological nature of ideal theory and the importance of non-ideal theory. Charles Mills, who sparked recent critiques of ideal theory, invokes the notion of “non-idealizing abstractions” and argues that these are helpful when applying non-ideal theory. In contrast, I argue that the notion of non-idealizing abstractions is not a helpful tool for non-ideal theory. I suspect that it pays insufficient attention to the actual power dynamics of oppression, which significantly (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  1
    Liberal Neutrality and Gender Justice.Emily McGill-Rutherford - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:91-111.
    At the center of many critiques of liberalism is liberal neutrality, which is attacked on two fronts. First, it is argued that neutrality yields a restrictive sphere of public reason. Contentious views—like those endorsed by citizens with marginalized comprehensive doctrines—are outlawed from public consideration. Second, state policies must have neutral effects, lest they differentially impact those with unpopular views. Contentious state actions—like those endorsed by citizens with marginalized moral views—are outlawed from implementation. It is this combination of demands for neutrality (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  3
    Online Shaming.Kathryn J. Norlock - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:187-197.
    Online shaming is a subject of import for social philosophy in the Internet age, and not simply because shaming seems generally bad. I argue that social philosophers are well-placed to address the we entertain when we engage in social media; activity in cyberspace results in more relationships than one previously had, entailing new and more responsibilities, and our relational behaviors admit of ethical assessment. I consider the stresses of social media, including the indefinite expansion of our relationships and responsibilities, and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. Debating Collective Responsibility.Elizabeth S. Piliero - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:175-186.
    This paper elucidates Hannah Arendt’s conditions for collective responsibility in light of her political writings. In turn, it pushes back on Iris Marion Young’s reservations about Arendtian collective responsibility and demonstrates its compatibility with Youngian political responsibility. At issue is how to understand Arendtian collective responsibility as political and therefore forward-looking, Arendt’s view of responsibility in the political realm as different from her view in the moral-legal realm, and what Arendt’s vision of collective responsibility requires of everyone. If Young’s political (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Commentary on Paul B. Thompson’s From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone.Elizabeth Sperry - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:209-215.
    Paul Thompson’s excellent book, From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone, argues that contemporary food ethics persistently ignores the nature and actual impact of GMOs, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, food aid to developing countries, and more. On Thompson’s view, such philosophical analyses must incorporate empirical knowledge. Additional strengths of Thompson’s book: its attention to quality-of-life issues, its openness to the concerns of the marginalized, and its emphasis on the interconnectedness of problems in food ethics. I raise one area of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. From Field to Fork and on to Philosophy.B. Thompson Paul - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:225-232.
    Jeffrey Brown, Greg Hoskins and Elizabeth Sperry pose questions about three different policy questions that are discussed in From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone: policy interventions to address obesity, welfare guidelines for egg production, and the safety of genetically engineered foods. However all three critiques turn on the question of what we can expect a non-specialist to know, and how much information they can be expected to process in making an ethical decision about what to eat. My response (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  1
    Public Reasoning Under Social Conditions of Strangerhood.Yates Melissa - 2017 - Social Philosophy Today 33:73-90.
    Political philosophers have long focused on how to explain democratically legitimate governance under social conditions of pluralism. The challenge, when framed this way, is how to justify a common set of political principles without imposing controversial moral, religious, or metaphysical doctrines on one another. In this paper I propose an alternate starting point, replacing the concept of “social conditions of pluralism” with the background assumption that democratic societies must respond to “social conditions of strangerhood.” In the first section, I make (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues