FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2086592110> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2086592110 endingPage "82" @default.
• W2086592110 startingPage "67" @default.
• W2086592110 abstract "On the Future of the Justice Debates Ross Zucker (bio) The commentaries that Vivek Chibber, Gary Mongiovi, and Thomas Simon prepared for this symposium call attention to some problems in theorizing democracy and distributive justice that I hadn't considered, and I wish to thank them for promoting further thought on these matters. In a review for another journal, Tom Spragens challenges Democratic Distributive Justice from a moral pluralist perspective, which resonates with so many scholars these days. I would also like to respond to his critique, since my book did not grapple extensively with that perspective. Some of the comments focus on my specific way of approaching the theory of substantive democracy and the theory of substantive democracy. But many of them go beyond it and raise objections to these entire categories of theory. From comments in this and other forums, theories of substantive democracy and distributive justice have clearly fallen into disfavor with some of the new voices in the field. In light of the critiques, I would like to reconsider whether these kinds of theories can play a useful role in the justice debates of the twenty-first century. In the process I shall offer some new supporting arguments for my version of substantive democracy and economic justice. It is noteworthy that a number of radical and mainstream theorists have recently united in opposition to theories of substantive democracy and distributive justice. Moral pluralists and procedural democrats often hold that theories of distributive justice cannot produce definitive standards for the just distribution of economic resources and that theoretical principles have undemocratic implications, since they are derived independently of actual democratic politics. Also opposed, but from a different angle of attack, some economic democrats, market socialists, and neo-Marxists maintain that income distribution is not an essential concern of economic justice and that, instead, the ownership and control of economic enterprises are its main concerns. Should twenty-first century debates in democratic theory be winnowed down to a contest between different moral pluralist and proceduralist visions of democracy and social justice? Should the justice debates focus on the contest between market socialism and economic democracy, on the one side, and liberal property regimes on the other? Or would these debates be more fruitfully carried on with due regard for theories of substantive democracy and distributive justice? The gathering consensus against theories of distributive justice and of substantive democracy could lead to the marginalization of these venerable forms of economic and political theory. What is at stake are some of the leading ways of evaluating political and economic systems that have been devised. As the impact of Locke's Two Treatises of Government on liberal democracy attests, theories of substantive democracy and distributive justice have played a major part in this field's contribution to society. Moral pluralism may contribute too, by showing that certain areas of ethics are not susceptible to definitive standards. But I don't think it is likely to contribute more—or in a more positive way—to political knowledge than, say, Locke did by theoretically analyzing democracy and economic justice. Theories of substantive democracy and distributive justice have special relevance to one of this epoch's great problems: the extremely unequal economic and social conditions that people live under in many democracies. Disenchantment on the part of the new voices notwithstanding, some leading contemporary theorists, such as Amartya Sen, Ronald Dworkin, John Rawls, and Philippe van Parijs, recognize the relevance and potential validity of theories of distributive justice and substantive democracy. Moral pluralism, procedural democratic theory, theories of economic democracy and market socialism, may be better suited to understand moral, religious and ethnic value conflicts, political inequality, and the control and ownership of economic enterprises. But theories of distributive justice and substantive democracy can go to the crux of the issue of income inequality in democratic societies. After examining the critics' comments, I think that these classes of theory are free of many of the shortcomings imputed to them and that they can continue to be useful in understanding economic justice and democracy. For one thing, the undemocratic implications which moral pluralists and procedural democrats often attribute to theories of substantive democracy do not..." @default.
• W2086592110 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2086592110 creator A5076968764 @default.
• W2086592110 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W2086592110 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2086592110 title "On the Future of the Justice Debates" @default.
• W2086592110 cites W1521673828 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W1539053875 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W1561613533 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W1582366073 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W1971365785 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W2023509749 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W2061355839 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W2088883801 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W2109040701 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W2168695899 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W220151161 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W2273613467 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W2904798609 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W3022207415 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W3023072833 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W3124157465 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W3124632404 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W3159875559 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W3184828901 @default.
• W2086592110 cites W567176332 @default.
• W2086592110 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/gso.2004.0033" @default.
• W2086592110 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2086592110 type Work @default.
• W2086592110 sameAs 2086592110 @default.
• W2086592110 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2086592110 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2086592110 hasAuthorship W2086592110A5076968764 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C11821877 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C202444582 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C2777617010 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C2779149496 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C2780129364 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C2780668109 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C111472728 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C11821877 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C138885662 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C139621336 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C144024400 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C17744445 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C190253527 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C199539241 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C202444582 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C26760741 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C2777617010 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C2779149496 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C2780129364 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C2780668109 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C33923547 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C555826173 @default.
• W2086592110 hasConceptScore W2086592110C94625758 @default.
• W2086592110 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2086592110 hasLocation W20865921101 @default.
• W2086592110 hasOpenAccess W2086592110 @default.
• W2086592110 hasPrimaryLocation W20865921101 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W1764799926 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W2056659443 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W2095479876 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W2153150162 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W2318980206 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W2383813818 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W2491225521 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W3000627061 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W3216007153 @default.
• W2086592110 hasRelatedWork W4313150776 @default.
• W2086592110 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W2086592110 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2086592110 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2086592110 magId "2086592110" @default.
• W2086592110 workType "article" @default.