No abstract

When philosophers talk about perfectionism, it is usually as a view of well-being, of developing characteristically human capacities. Yet perfectionism can also be a normative account of what we owe to each other. This article argues that perfectionists have reason to endorse a perfectionist basic structure such that enables persons to develop and exercise their human capacities in meaningful ways. This basic structure has two complementary features: First, it enables a diversity of life experiences. Second, it provides a spatial opportunity structure that creates open-minded environments. Absent these features, rich or lucky individuals gain an unfair advantage in the sphere of opportunities for developing their capacities in meaningful ways.

No abstract

Walking contributes to well-being in more than health-related ways. This paper adds a new perspective to the walkability agenda by introducing the concept of objective well-being. Objective well-being is the view that our well-being is dependent on the successful development and exercise of our various human capacities. Walking enables unique opportunities to develop our human capacities; opportunities that are absent in driving or commuting. Walking enables a more discerning acquisition of knowledge, opportunity for creativity, for developing our affective and social capacities, and for exercising the capacity to will. Finally, the paper reflects on possible directions for incorporating objective well-being into the walkability agenda.

The current system of decision making in land use law is not transparent and is open to biased or personal corruption. This gives rise to the possibility of unequal treatment under the law, especially given the judicial reluctance to interfere in reviewing the decision making process. Our solution is an auction mechanism to overcome these problems, under which the local government would be bound to award land use rights to the highest bidder and where offers will be examined in light of their contribution to the society’s best interest. Such mechanism has possible benefits in terms of transparency and insurance against favouritism or arbitrariness. The auction mechanism proposes the use of a simple metric (i.e., revealed private value of the competing claims) by which the local government can give a transparent, non-arbitrary, observable, and verifiable response. This mechanism, so we argue, treats each and every person’s choices with equal concern and respect. In this sense, the auction is procedurally fair by being conducted between potential bargainers that enjoy equality in background conditions and when means for offsetting brute bad lack are utilized.