6 found
Order:
  1. The Separateness of Persons: Defending the Rawlsian Institutional Approach to Distributive Justice.Edward Andrew Greetis - 2023 - Journal of Value Inquiry 57 (2):319-341.
    The Rawlsian institutional approach holds that distributive principles apply to socioeconomic institutions rather than transactions within the institutional framework. Critics claim that the approach is baseless. I defend Rawls’s institutionalism by showing that it has a rational basis: Rawls “constructs” a theory of justice from considered judgments, especially ideas found in the political culture and historical conditions of democracy, including the fact of reasonable pluralism, which supports his institutionalism. I use Rawls’s “fact-sensitive constructivism” to interpret his claim that “utilitarianism does (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Spinoza's Rejection of Teleology.Edward Andrew Greetis - 2010 - Revista Conatus - Filosofia de Spinoza 4 (8):25-35.
  3. Rescuing Rawls’s Institutionalism and Incentives Inequality.Edward Andrew Greetis - 2019 - Res Publica 25 (4):571-590.
    G. A. Cohen argues that Rawls’s difference principle is incompatible with his endorsement of incentives inequality—higher pay for certain professions is just when that pay benefits everyone. Cohen concludes that Rawls must reject both incentives inequality and ‘institutionalism’—the view that egalitarian principles, including the difference principle, apply exclusively to social institutions. I argue that the premises of Cohen’s ‘internal criticism’ of Rawls require rejecting two important parts of his theory: a ‘subjective circumstance of justice’ and a ‘shared conception of justice’. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4. Against the anticosmopolitan basic structure argument: the systemic concept of distributive justice and economic divisions of labor.Edward Andrew Greetis - 2022 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 25 (4):551-571.
    I examine the main anticosmopolitan Rawslian argument, the ‘basic structure argument.’ It holds that distributive justice only applies to existing basic structures, there are only state basic structures, so distributive justice only applies among compatriots. Proponents of the argument face three challenges: 1) they must explain what type of basic structure relation makes distributive justice relevant only among compatriots, 2) they must explain why distributive justice (as opposed to allocative or retributive) is the relevant regulative concept for basic structures, and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. The Priority of Liberty: Rawls Versus Pogge.Edward Andrew Greetis - 2015 - Philosophical Forum 46 (2):227-245.
    Thomas Pogge argues that John Rawls’s priority of liberty rule is not constraining enough: it permits morally unacceptable restrictions of basic liberties. Because of this, Pogge claims that Rawls fails in his two central ambitions: to construct a moral conception that (1) opposes utilitarianism and (2) matches his judgments in reflective equilibrium. Pogge attributes this error to Rawls’s “purely recipient-oriented theorizing”—assessing a society’s basic structure based on how its citizens fare. I argue that Rawls’s theory does not allow restrictions of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  99
    Dissociative Identity: An Objection to Baker’s Constitution Theory.Edward Andrew Greetis - 2011 - Acta Analytica 26 (4):329-341.
    One of the central problems of personal identity is to determine what we are essentially . In response to this problem, Lynne Rudder Baker espouses a psychological criterion, that is, she claims that persons are essentially psychological. Baker’s theory purports to bypass the problems of other psychological theories such as Dissociative Identity Disorder and the problem of individuating persons synchronically. I argue that the theory’s treatment of Dissociative Identity Disorder leads to untenable results, is invalid, and consequently fails to individuate (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark