首页> 外文学位 >Liberation and liberal freedom: A critique of Rawls's 'Law of Peoples' in light of positive freedom.
【24h】

Liberation and liberal freedom: A critique of Rawls's 'Law of Peoples' in light of positive freedom.

机译:解放与自由自由:鉴于积极自由,对罗尔斯的《人民法律》的批评。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

How can Rawls's The Law of Peoples serve as a theory of justice that clarifies the responsibility of consumers in affluent societies to workers in impoverished societies whose labor produced the goods being consumed? If it is true that some of the most serious cases of injustice involve labor arrangements in the global economy involving something similar to economic slavery as described by Marx, then an adequate theory of justice should address such problems. I will argue that Rawls's theory in the international application should be revised in order to avoid criticisms of being either irrelevant to crucial cases of injustice or merely a modus vivendi argument that fails to accomplish Rawls's intent. To demonstrate the need for these revisions. I ask: how would his theory be different if Rawls had maintained both the positive and negative dimensions of freedom? I explore the reasons that Rawls dismissed positive freedom as a valuable concept, including the influence of Isaiah Berlin and others. I examine various definitions of positive freedom with special interest in the words of T.H. Green who advocated the "the liberation of the powers of all."1 This liberation assumes both material conditions and moral justification. If Rawls had maintained this notion of positive freedom as social self-expression with enabling conditions then Rawls would have prevented various criticisms. This definition of positive freedom shapes three parts of my argument: first, positive freedom entails resources as enabling conditions; second, positive freedom is social freedom in relationship with others; and third, positive freedom is activity of the will and therefore a labor of self-construction. I link criticisms of Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Pogge, and G. A. Cohen as examples of criticism related to the potential for freedom to be merely formal in Rawls's theory. I conclude that positive freedom is a concept worth retaining because it helps account for Rawls's drift toward socialism. Finally, I conclude that further extension of the Law of Peoples as informed by this robust notion of freedom would lead to connections with liberation and feminist theory and greater relevance for issues of labor justice in the global economy.; 1T.H. Green, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 2000.
机译:罗尔斯的《人民法》如何作为正义理论来阐明富裕社会中的消费者对贫穷社会中的工人的责任,这些工人的劳动生产了所消费的商品?如果确实存在一些最严重的不公正案件,涉及全球经济中的劳动安排,涉及到马克思所描述的类似于经济奴隶制的事情,那么适当的正义理论应该解决这些问题。我将争辩说,应修改罗尔斯在国际申请中的理论,以避免批评要么与不公正的关键案例无关,要么仅仅是未能实现罗尔斯意图的惯常观点。证明需要这些修订。我问:如果罗尔斯既保持自由的积极方面又保持消极方面,他的理论将有何不同?我探讨了罗尔斯(Rawls)拒绝将积极自由视为有价值的概念的原因,其中包括以赛亚·柏林(Isaiah Berlin)等人的影响。我以T.H.格林倡导“所有人的力量的解放”。1这种解放既具有物质条件,又具有道义上的理由。如果罗尔斯将积极自由的概念保持为有条件的社会自我表达,那么罗尔斯将避免各种批评。积极自由的定义塑造了我的论点的三个部分:首先,积极自由将资源视为有利条件;第二,积极自由是与他人交往中的社会自由。第三,积极自由是意志的活动,因此是自我建构的劳动。我将对玛莎·努斯鲍姆(Martha Nussbaum),托马斯·波格(Thomas Pogge)和加·科恩(G.A. Cohen)的批评联系起来,作为与自由在罗尔斯理论中只是形式化的潜力有关的批评的例子。我得出结论,积极自由是一个值得保留的概念,因为它有助于解释罗尔斯向社会主义的转变。最后,我的结论是,以这种强有力的自由观念为基础的人民法的进一步扩展将导致与解放和女权主义理论的联系,以及与全球经济中劳动正义问题的更大关联。 1时格林,关于政治义务原则的演讲。 (纽约:剑桥大学出版社,1986),2000。

著录项

  • 作者

    McCallie, Kathy.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Oklahoma.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Oklahoma.;
  • 学科 Philosophy.; Political Science General.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2006
  • 页码 372 p.
  • 总页数 372
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 哲学理论;政治理论;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号