首页> 外文期刊>Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy >Just pretending: political apologies for historical injustice and vice’s tribute to virtue
【24h】

Just pretending: political apologies for historical injustice and vice’s tribute to virtue

机译:只是假装:对历史不公和恶行的政治道歉致敬

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Should we be concerned with, or alarmed or outraged by, the insincerity and hypocrisy of politicians who apologize for historical injustice? This paper argues that the correct reply to this question is: sometimes, but not always. In order to establish what types of insincerity must be avoided, Judith Shklar’s hierarchy of ordinary vices is critically revisited. Against Shklar’s overly benign account of hypocrisy, the paper then tries to demonstrate that only institutional and harmful forms of hypocrisy must be rejected in political apologies for historical injustice. Employing Melissa Nobles’ ‘membership theory’, this paper defends the claim that the sincerity standard for political apologies is, in stark contrast to apologies between individuals, agent independent. This means that in political apologies, rather than focusing on the remorse and regret of the agent who apologizes, we must primarily examine the apology’s consequences in terms of renegotiating the legal, political and affective dimensions of citizenship. In domestic affairs, the paper shows that apologies can only be considered sincere if they push the polity towards a more inclusive conception of membership in the political community.View full textDownload full textKeywordshistorical injustice, hypocrisy, moderate realism, political apology, sincerityRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2011.640810
机译:我们应该为因历史不公而道歉的政客的不诚实和伪善感到担忧,震惊或愤怒吗?本文认为,对该问题的正确答案是:有时但并非总是如此。为了确定必须避免哪种类型的不诚实行为,朱迪思·什克拉(Judith Shklar)的普通恶习等级得到了重新审视。针对什克拉(Shklar)对伪善的过度良性解释,本文试图证明,只有政治上和有害的伪善形式才能因历史不公正而在政治道歉中被拒绝。本文采用梅利莎·诺布尔斯(Melissa Nobles)的“成员资格理论”,辩称政治道歉的诚意标准与个人之间的道歉形成鲜明的对照,即代理人独立。这意味着,在政治道歉中,我们不应只着眼于道歉的代理人的re悔和遗憾,而必须从重新协商公民身份的法律,政治和情感层面出发,主要研究道歉的后果。在国内事务中,本文表明道歉只有将政治推向政治社区中更具包容性的会员资格概念才能被认为是真诚的。查看全文下载全文历史不公正,虚伪,温和现实主义,政治道歉,真诚道歉相关变量var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand:“ Taylor&Francis Online”,servicescompact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2011.640810

著录项

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