Equality and the Significance of Coercion

Wollner, Gabriel

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2011.01539.x

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More specifically, Wollner argues that Blake cannot simultaneously (1) provide an account of the wrongness of coercion; (2) explain how the demand for distributive justice arises in response to the moral problem of coercion; and (3) identify some forms of interaction as relevantly coercive. 74 Wollner considers what he calls the coercer's intention account of the wrongness of coercion, which is similar to the account I endorse above. 75 On this account, the wrong of coercion is located in the attitude the coercer adopts toward his or her victim's agency, treating it as a mere means:…”

Section: Distributive Justice and The Wrong Of Coercionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Wollner argues that the bystander's coercive act is pro tanto wrong since she "could appropriately regret her threat and think: 'I wish I could have convinced her not to walk instead of having had to point my gun at her.'" 81 Wollner's idea seems to be that there is something morally deficient about the use of coercion in this case, even if justified all things considered. I agree that there is something morally deficient about this case.…”

Section: Distributive Justice and The Wrong Of Coercionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coercion and Distributive Justice: A Defense

MacKay¹

2016

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Distributive Justice and The Wrong Of Coercionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Distributive Justice and The Wrong Of Coercionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Coercion and Distributive Justice: A Defense

MacKay¹

2016

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, the usage of the systemic method makes it possible to determine the place of state coercion among the methods for implementing state power (Schauer, 2014), (Stavropoulos, 2009). Finally, we adhere to a sociological approach to the study of the state and law to analyze a state coercion as a social phenomenon (Arneson, 2003), (Wollner, 2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acceptance criterion of state coercion in contemporary society

Финогентова¹,

Tokarev²,

Petrenko³

2018

JESI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article presents acceptance criterion of the state coercion as a form of power realization. According to authors, essential signs of the state coercion, firstly, are functionaries and state authorities representing the society that in turn, legitimizing this state, secondly, the state coercion mediacy by the right. Its social nature causes understanding the state coercion as a legal relation that coercive and coerced subjects, authorized with certain rights and duties, enter. The authorization of subjects, in relation to which enforcement actions are applied, with legal rights and duties testifies to the legal conditionality of state coercion. As a result, it must satisfy the requirements of legality, legitimacy and justice at both levels of the legal systemsectoral and intersectoraland at all stages of the process of its implementation. The general acceptance criterion of the state coercion is provided to recognize the conformity of its application to the requirements of justice as a moral category. Structural elements of this criterion are validity and proportionality. Their differentiation in content makes it possible to assert that the state coercion should be based on the law (validity) and correlated with individualizing circumstances, which allowing to correct the influence of the coercive on the coerced taking into account the specifics of the concrete case (proportionality).

show abstract

“…I call this the 'redundancy objection'. Objections of this type have been levelled by Sangiovanni (2011Sangiovanni ( , 2012a and Wollner (2011). In order to define what coercion precisely amounts to, coercionbased approaches need to define a baseline with respect to which coercive interferences are identified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systemic domination as ground of justice

Jugov

2017

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a domination-based practice-dependent approach to justice, according to which it is practices of systemic domination which can be said to ground demands from justice. The domination-based approach developed overcomes the two most important objections levelled to alternative practice-dependent approaches. First, it eschews conservative implications and hence is immune to the status quo objection. Second, it is immune to the redundancy objection, which doubts whether empirical facts and practices can really play an irreducible role in grounding justice. In theorising dominating practices in terms of practices of social power, a domination-based approach makes justice dependent on factual information in three ways: First, the principle of non-domination is indeterminate and can only be spelled out by taking into view particular contexts of domination. Second, the principle of non-domination is conditional on the existence of practices of social power. Third, social power possesses a structural ontology – to know whether A has social power over B we need to turn to social rules distributing agents' higher order status of normative authority towards each other. This explains in what way practices of social power – and of domination – are both factual and normative practices and hence how such practices are non-redundant in grounding justice.

show abstract

Equality and the Significance of Coercion

Cited by 4 publications

References 12 publications

Coercion and Distributive Justice: A Defense

Coercion and Distributive Justice: A Defense

Acceptance criterion of state coercion in contemporary society

Systemic domination as ground of justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About