Three Feasibility Constraints on the Concept of Justice

Chahboun, Naima

doi:10.1007/s11158-016-9336-z

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A ‘hard constraint’ on a given goal, as several feasibility theorists have recently put it, makes the actual implementation of a given goal ‘unfeasible’ 38 , . pp.215‐218 , 39–43 …”

Section: The Feasibility Of Social Justice Under the Hard Constraints...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical guidelines for the allocation of scarce intensive care units during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Discussing a Brazilian proposal

de Araujo,

Azevedo,

Bonella

et al. 2023

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RationaleIn the context of a major health crisis, health professionals must first compare patients' recovery prospects, thus giving priority to the goal of saving the greatest number of lives.Aims and ObjectivesCritically evaluate a protocol for allocation of scarce intensive care units (ICU), which the authors proposed at the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic and originally published in two Brazilian newspapers; and compare that protocol with similar proposals, particularly with 2 successive protocols issued by the Brazilian Critical Care Association. The main objective is to highlight the advantages of the authors' approach and discuss some criticisms that has been levelled against the proposed protocol after its original publication in 2020.MethodComparative analysis of 3 different protocols (the authors' proposed protocol and 2 successive protocols issued by the Brazilian Critical Care Association) with regard to ethical principles.ResultsThe main objective of a healthcare system is to ensure a fair patient triage process when it is impossible to grant admission to all patients in need of treatment. Decision‐making regarding the impartial prioritization of ICU admissions must be based primarily on clinical criteria. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) is, for ethical and technical reasons, a useful tool for clinical assessments of patients. Based on three ranges of SOFA scores, patients can be classified into a “high”, a “medium”, and a “low” priority group. In the case of ties, the life cycle principle must be the tiebreaker. If the tie persists, a draw must be used.ConclusionThe authors' proposed protocol has advantages over the other two protocols due to its greater practicality and capacity to account for egalitarian and consequentialist principles simultaneously. It aims at saving as many lives as possible within the constraints of fairness. Furthermore, the proposed protocol avoids discrimination against people with disabilities without, at the same time, promoting discrimination against the elderly.

show abstract

Section: The Feasibility Of Social Justice Under the Hard Constraints...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical guidelines for the allocation of scarce intensive care units during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Discussing a Brazilian proposal

de Araujo,

Azevedo,

Bonella

et al. 2023

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not my aim here to settle on the right account of feasibility. Indeed, we may agree with Hamlin (2017) or Chahboun (2017) that there are distinct notions of feasibility worth distinguishing. And there are more questions about feasibility to answer besides.…”

Section: Two Disanalogies Towards a Limitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Markets Within the Limit of Feasibility

Silver

2021

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘limits of markets’ debate broadly concerns the question of when it is (im)permissible to have a market in some good. Markets can be of tremendous benefit to society, but many have felt that certain goods should not be for sale (e.g., sex, kidneys, bombs). Their sale is argued to be corrupting, exploitative, or to express a form of disrespect. In Markets without Limits, Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski have recently argued to the contrary: For any good, as long as it is permissible to give it for free, then it is permissible to give it for money. Their thesis has led to a number of engaging objections, and I leverage recent work on the nature of feasibility within political philosophy to offer a new challenge.I argue that feasibility offers a constraint on which markets can be permissibly implemented. Though it may be possible to create a morally acceptable version of an otherwise repugnant market, some of these markets may be infeasible, and so we are not permitted to implement them. After laying out this challenge, I consider several replies. They concern the relevance of feasibility, and whether any markets really are infeasible. This provides an opportunity to explore the dangers of pursuing the infeasible and with markets generally. I conclude by considering what might lead us to pursue these markets despite their infeasibility, or how knowledge of infeasibility may prove useful regardless.

show abstract

“…14 14 For a discussion of feasibility in the context of socio‐economic rights, see Gilabert, 2009 and for feasibility in the context of socialism, see Gilabert, 2011. For a general overview of the feasibility literature beyond the contributions of Lawford‐Smith and Gilabert, see the helpful discussion in Chahboun, 2017. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice in Theory and Practice: Debates about Utopianism and Political Action

Laurence

2023

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay provide an overview of debates about the method of political philosophy that have recently gripped the field, focusing on the relationship of theory to practice. These debates can be usefully organized using two oppositions that together carve the field into three broad families of views. Call “practicalism” the view that the theory of justice exists to guide political action. Call “utopianism” the view that reflection on the idea of a just society plays an important role in the theory of justice. Call the view that combines the two positions, “utopian practicalism”. On this view, reflection on the nature of a just society has an important role to play in guiding action. There would appear to be two ways to depart from this position: by rejecting the view's utopianism or its practicalism. So we find in the literature three broad camps: utopian practicalists, anti‐utopians, and anti‐practicalists. This essay provide an opinionated overview the ongoing debates between these three broad positions. It touches on the recent cases against practicalism by G.A. Cohen and David Estlund, the comparativist methodologies advocated by anti‐utopians such as Amartya Sen and Gerry Gaus, and systems failure approaches of Elizabeth Anderson and David Wiens. It also considers the recent development of novel utopian practicalist perspectives in the work of theorists including Erik Wright, Tommie Shelby, Lea Ypi, Pablo Gilabert, and Ben Laurence.

show abstract

Three Feasibility Constraints on the Concept of Justice

Cited by 5 publications

References 52 publications

Ethical guidelines for the allocation of scarce intensive care units during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Discussing a Brazilian proposal

Ethical guidelines for the allocation of scarce intensive care units during the COVID‐19 pandemic: Discussing a Brazilian proposal

Markets Within the Limit of Feasibility

Justice in Theory and Practice: Debates about Utopianism and Political Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About