Cooperation, Pervasive Impact, and Coercion: On the Scope (not Site) of Distributive Justice

Abizadeh, Arash

doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00116.x

Cited by 138 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The onus is on the sceptic to show where the analogy fails. Arash Abizadeh (2007) makes similar claims regarding the analogy between domestic and international distributive justice.…”

Section: Moral Significance Of Process Based Worriesmentioning

confidence: 84%

International Financial Institutions

Edwards¹

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The onus is on the sceptic to show where the analogy fails. Arash Abizadeh (2007) makes similar claims regarding the analogy between domestic and international distributive justice.…”

Section: Moral Significance Of Process Based Worriesmentioning

confidence: 84%

International Financial Institutions

Edwards¹

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In particular, like proponents of the agent-based view, I have argued that certain types of social rules are a necessary existence condition of some demands of justice, insofar as they allow us to anticipate, and control, the joint consequences of our actions. I have also argued, contrary to the agent-based view, and in line with its recipient-based counterpart, that the presence of institutions explicitly designed to secure persons' ability to lead autonomous lives is a necessary instrumental condition for the realization of the demands of justice (Abizadeh 2007). Moreover, like proponents of the mixed view, I take considerations about responsibility to be relevant to the distinction between justice and charity.…”

Section: The Virtues Of the Autonomy Viewmentioning

confidence: 92%

Justice, Charity, and Disaster Relief: What, If Anything, Is Owed to Haiti, Japan, and New Zealand?

Valentini

2012

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whenever fellow humans suffer due to natural catastrophes, we have a duty to help them. This duty is not only acknowledged in moral theory but also expressed in ordinary people's reactions to phenomena such as tsunamis, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Despite being widely acknowledged, this duty is also widely disputed: some believe it is a matter of justice, others a matter of charity. Although central to debates in international political theory, the distinction between justice and charity is hardly ever systematically drawn. To fill this gap in the literature, I consider three accounts of this distinctionthe "agent-based," the "recipient-based," and the "mixed" view-and argue that they are all unsatisfactory. I then offer a fourth alternative, the "autonomy" view, which successfully overcomes the difficulties affecting its rivals. I conclude by considering the implications of this view for the moral grounds of disaster relief in earthquake-stricken Haiti, New Zealand, and Japan.

show abstract

“…Arash Abizadeh has suggested three ''readings'' of the basic structure argument: first, the basic structure can be understood as an existence condition that is prior to and ''triggers'' justice; second, as a constitutive condition that co-exists with justice; and third, as an instrumental condition that needs to be satisfied in order for justice to be realized. I will use these different conceptions of the basic structure in the analysis below (Abizadeh 2007).…”

Section: (A) Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, the pluralist sees these as reasons for further cooperation and dialogue. Moreover, institutions are in the making and should therefore be taken to include future institutions, i.e., institutions are not only existent but also instrumental to the concern for promoting justice (Abizadeh 2007). The recent decision by the EU (EU Commission 2010) to give each member country the freedom to choose whether or not it wants to approve of GMOs exemplifies this type of pluralist sentiment.…”

Section: Balanced Gm Pluralistmentioning

confidence: 99%

GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food

Toft¹

2010

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of using genetically modified (GM) crops and food in the developing world often claim that it is unjust not to use GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. In reply, the critics of GMOs claim that while GMOs may be useful as a technological means to increase yields and crop quality, stable and efficient institutions are required in order to provide the benefits from GMO technology. In this debate, the GMO proponents tend to rely on a simple utilitarian type of calculus that highlights the benefits of GMOs to the poor, but that overlooks the complex institutional requirements necessary for GMO production. The critics, recognizing the importance of institutional conditions, focus primarily on the negative impacts of institutional deficiencies, thereby overlooking the basically Rawlsian claim that institutions per se may generate claims to justice. This article investigates how GMOs might generate claims to global justice and what type of justice is involved. The paper argues that the debate on GMOs and global justice can be categorized into three views, i.e., the cosmopolitan, the pluralist, and the sceptic. The cosmopolitan holds that GMOs can and should be used for alleviating global hunger, whereas the sceptic rejects this course of action. I will argue here for a moderately cosmopolitan approach, relying on the pluralist view of institutions and the need to exploit the benefits of GMOs. This argument rests on the premise that global cooperation on GMO production provides the relevant basis for assessing the use of GMOs by the standard of global distributive justice.

show abstract

Cooperation, Pervasive Impact, and Coercion: On the Scope (not Site) of Distributive Justice

Cited by 138 publications

References 0 publications

International Financial Institutions

International Financial Institutions

Justice, Charity, and Disaster Relief: What, If Anything, Is Owed to Haiti, Japan, and New Zealand?

GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About