Global justice, reciprocity, and the state
Global justice, reciprocity, and the state
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00097.x
复制
发表时间：
2007-12-01
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Sangiovanni, Andrea
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sangiovanni, Andrea
所有的世界主义者至少都有这样一套信仰：(I)人类是道德关怀的终极单位。家庭、部落、民族、文化等等只能间接地成为关注的单位。(2)道德关怀的终极单位的地位平等地延伸到所有人。(3)每个人都应该把人视为终极关怀单位。1接受这些世界性的前提，就像我所做的那样，对任何相信根本不同的分配正义原则一方面适用于全球秩序，另一方面适用于现代国家的主要社会和政治机构的人来说，是一个挑战。“道德评估中的差异，”波格断言，“看起来是武断的。为什么我们的道德义务，制约着我们可能强加给对方的经济秩序，在这两种情况下会如此不同？”2本文的目的是证明这种差异实际上不是武断的，而且这样做时不会违反我们开始时的任何世界性前提。更具体地说，我将捍卫这样一种观点，即平等只是公民对正义的要求(实际上，
All cosmopolitans hold at least this set of beliefs:(i) Human beings are ultimate units of moral concern. Families, tribes, nations, cultures, and so on can become units of concern only indirectly.(2) The status as an ultimate unit of moral concern extends to all human beings equally.(3) Human beings should be treated as ultimate units of concern by everyone. 1Accepting these cosmopolitan premises, as I do, poses a challenge for anyone who believes that fundamentally different principles of distributive justice apply to the global order, on one hand, and to the main social and political institutions of the modern state, on the other." This discrepancy in moral assessment," Pogge avers," looks arbitrary. Why should our moral duties, constraining what economic order we may impose upon one another, be so different in the two cases?" 2 The aim of this article is to demonstrate that this discrepancy is not in fact arbitrary, and to do so without violating any of the cosmopolitan premises with which we began. More specifically, I will defend the idea that equality is a demand of justice only among citizens (and, indeed,