Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communitarianism | MacIntyre | Brocker I 662 Communitarianism/MacIntyre: MacIntyre refuses to be classified as a communitarian.(1) This refusal is stringent, since MacIntyre sees neither in a modern communitarianism nor in the implantation of an antique communitarianism into modernism a possibility to get out of the impasse. >Modernism/MacIntyre, Ethics/MacIntyre, Morals/MacIntyre. MacIntyre: Thesis: we live in an epoch after the virtue. MacIntyre is not prepared to accept contemporary communitarianism as a possible response to the crisis of liberalism. MacIntyreVsCommunitarianism: The option of such a corrective dualism of liberalism and communitarianism falls below the problem level given to it. There is no easy way out of the disastrous situation of modernism. >Communitarianism, >VsCommunitarianism. 1. Alasdair MacIntyre „I’m not a Communitarian, But…” in: The responsive Community. Rights and Responsibilities, 1/3, 1991, p. 91. Jürgen Goldstein, „Alasdair MacIntyre, Der Verlust der Tugend“ in: Manfred Brocker (Hg.) Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
Brocker I Manfred Brocker Geschichte des politischen Denkens. Das 20. Jahrhundert Frankfurt/M. 2018 |
| Conflicts | Communitarianism | Gaus I 234 Conflicts/Communitarianism/Lamont: where there is genuine disagreement within a culture, what within the communitarian theory ensures that voices of criticism and dissent will not be drowned by the dominant, possibly oppressive, culture? If there are no independent normative standards for defining oppression, and if even the points of view of dissenting individuals are secondary to the normative primacy of cultures, how can any cultures be shown oppressive on the communitarian view? LiberalismVsCommunitarianism: Jean Hampton is one liberal theorist who believes communitarian theories lack the theoretical resources needed to answer these questions: in her words, communitarian theories lack 'critical moral distance' (1997(1): 188). Whether communitarians can answer this complaint in a distinctive way will determine the success of communitarian theory as a viable alternative to liberalism, and will also determine, more broadly, the success of cultural relativism for distributive justice. >Culture, >Cultural relativism, >Cultural values, >Multiculturalism, >Liberalism, >VsCommunitarianism, >Oppression, >Distributive justice. 1. Hampton, Jean (1997) Political Philosophy. Oxford: Westview. Lamont, Julian 2004. „Distributive Justice“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications |
Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| Distributive Justice | Walzer | Mause I 199f Distributive Justice/Walzer: Walzer represents an egalitarian position with regard to the distribution of goods. However, it is not a matter of levelling, but of a variety of goods whose distribution follows specific rules depending on the goods. >Egalitarianism. Social Goods/Walzer: e.g. membership and affiliation, security and welfare, money and goods, offices, hard work, leisure time, upbringing and education, kinship and love, divine grace, recognition, political power. Dominant goods also allow their owners to acquire goods from another sphere while disregarding the distribution rules of that sphere. This is the case when persons hold offices in a society on the basis of mere party membership (and not on the basis of qualifications and performance) or when money (and not talent) decides on access to education. Dominant goods are unjust because they violate the internal logic of the spheres of justice and establish a principle of rule that exists across the spheres. >Social goods. Solution/Walzer: "complex equality": In communities with complex equality there are no dominant goods, the autonomy of the different spheres of justice is preserved. The principle of distribution of complex justice is formally as follows: "No social good X, regardless of its meaning, should be distributed to men and women who own a good Y solely because they possess this Y". (1) Because no sphere is subordinated to the other, different individual development possibilities are opened up. If the sphere-specific distribution principles are observed, the distribution result can be open-ended, i.e. unequal. VsWalzer: the practical question arises, how the autonomy and mutual independence of the spheres of justice can be preserved. Walzer's goal of reducing dominance requires a demarcation of the spheres. Ultimately, this can only be achieved by a state power. However, this contradicts the role of community activities and civil society involvement. (VsCommunitarism). >Communitarianism, >Justice, >Inequalities. VsWalzer: Question: Do his principles not only defend the status quo when they are so strongly tied to traditions and beliefs of a particular community? (2) 1. M. Walzer, Sphären der Gerechtigkeit. Ein Plädoyer für Pluralität und Gleichheit. Frankfurt a. M. 1992, S. 50. 2. Bernd Ladwig, Gerechtigkeitstheorien zur Einführung. Hamburg 2013. S. 167. |
Mause I Karsten Mause Christian Müller Klaus Schubert, Politik und Wirtschaft: Ein integratives Kompendium Wiesbaden 2018 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.