Citizenship and justice
Citizenship and justice
复制标题
公民与正义
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Andrew Mason
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Andrew Mason
公民的权利、义务和美德是完全基于正义的考虑，还是它们中的一些或全部有其他来源？这个问题是通过区分这些权利、义务和美德的正当理由的三种不同的账户来解决的，即正义账户、共同利益账户和平等成员账户。共同利益的描述被拒绝了，理由是它提供了一种令人难以置信的方式来理解什么是公民行为。然后，有人认为，正义账户和平等成员账户提供了互补的视角，在它们所依据的义务范围上有所不同：后者分析了公民本身(那些拥有无条件居留权和充分政治权利的人)对彼此负有的义务，而前者则分析了处于同一国家管辖之下的人--无论是不是同胞--对彼此负有的义务。文章的结论是，正义账户和平等成员账户之间的区别跨越了自由派和共和党公民身份理论之间的传统区别。
Are the rights, duties, and virtues of citizenship grounded exclusively in considerations of justice, or do some or all of them have other sources? This question is addressed by distinguishing three different accounts of the justification of these rights, duties, and virtues, namely, the justice account, the common-good account, and the equal-membership account. The common-good account is rejected on the grounds that it provides an implausible way of understanding what it is to act as a citizen. It is then argued that the justice account and the equal-membership account provide complementary perspectives that differ in terms of the scope of the duties they ground: the latter offers an analysis of the duties that citizens proper (those with an unconditional right of residence and full political rights) owe to each other, whereas the former provides an analysis of the duties that those who are under the jurisdiction of the same state, whether fellow citizens or not, owe to each other. The article concludes by arguing that the distinction between the justice account and the equal-membership account cuts across the traditional one that is drawn between liberal and republican theories of citizenship.