Equality, Responsibility, and the Balance of Interests
Equality, Responsibility, and the Balance of Interests
复制标题
平等、责任、利益平衡
DOI：
10.1111/josp.12038
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
Hyams K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hyams K
平等主义者认为，我们有一个亲坦托道德理由，以避免让一些人比其他人更糟。与此同时，许多当代的平等主义者也承认，我们有时应该让人们对自己选择的后果负责，即使这样做需要我们让他们比其他人更糟糕。[1]德沃金在1981年首次提出，这两种承诺都可能被联合确认，这一认识给政治理论的争论格局带来了持久的转变，形成了一种新的、非常有影响力的正义理论：对选择敏感的平等主义。[2]为了反映这一转变的重要性，最近的政治理论中最常被引用的一句话是GA·科恩（GA Cohen）的说法，这一点也不奇怪：德沃金“为平等主义做出了巨大贡献，将反平等主义权利的武器库中最强大的思想：选择和责任的思想纳入其中”。[3]也许更令人惊讶的是，尽管德沃金的举动对政治理论产生了重大影响，尽管德沃金的理论后来出现了各种各样的变化，但很少有人写过为什么平等主义者应该同意右翼的要求，即我们要让人们对他们的选择负责。也就是说，虽然有很多关于平等主义者如何将平等承诺与让人们对自己的选择负责的承诺结合起来的讨论，但几乎没有讨论这样做的潜在理由，更少讨论潜在理由是否真正符合平等主义的承诺。
Egalitarians believe that we have a pro tanto moral reason to avoid leaving some people worse off than others. At the same time, many contemporary egalitarians accept that we should sometimes hold people responsible for the consequences of their choices, even when doing so requires us to leave them worse off than others. 1 The realization that both of these commitments might be conjunctively affirmed, first suggested by Dworkin in 1981, brought about an enduring shift in the argumentative landscape of political theory, in the form of a new and very influential theory of justice: choice-sensitive egalitarianism. 2 Reflecting the importance of this shift, it is hardly surprising that one of the most frequently quoted lines of recent political theory is GA Cohen’s claim that Dworkin has “performed for egalitarianism the considerable service of incorporating within it the most powerful idea in the arsenal of the anti-egalitarian right: the idea of choice and responsibility.” 3What is, perhaps, more surprising, is that despite the major impact that Dworkin’s move has had on political theory, and despite the multifarious variations on Dworkin’s theory that have since emerged, there has been very little written on why egalitarians ought accede to the right’s demand that we hold people responsible for their choices. That is, while there has been plenty of discussion about how egalitarians might combine a commitment to equality with a commitment to holding people responsible for their choices, there has been almost no discussion of the underlying justification for doing so, and even less discussion of whether the underlying justification is genuinely consistent with a commitment to egalitarianism.
登录
查看更多内容
自由主义、分配主观主义和福利机会均等
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1990
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Richard J. Arneson
通讯作者：
Richard J. Arneson
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00068.x
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
The Philosophical Quarterly
影响因子：
--
作者：
J. Jenkins
通讯作者：
J. Jenkins
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Zofia Stemplowska
通讯作者：
Zofia Stemplowska
斯坎伦论实质性责任
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Alex Voorhoeve
通讯作者：
Alex Voorhoeve