Egalitarianism and Global Justice

Ip, Kevin K. W.

doi:10.1057/978-1-137-51407-3

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…El problema de las desigualdades en el mundo del capitalismo global ha sido tematizado por el mainstream de la filosofía política contemporánea bajo el concepto de "justicia global" (Ip, 2016;Fabre, 2005). Es importante recordar que este mainstream de la filosofía política, ligado a la fuerte influencia de think tanks y universidades anglosajonas, se considera heredero de la tradición política liberal y encuentra en la obra de John Rawls su referente teórico obligado.…”

Section: La Teoría De La Justicia Global: Una Respuesta Liberalunclassified

Repensar la justicia global más allá del capitalismo

Garcia-Acevedo¹

2023

Tópicos (México)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este artículo pretende mostrar que el discurso de la justicia global, tal y como se ha presentado en la tradición de la teoría política liberal, se encuentra poco capacitado para ofrecer respuestas satisfactorias frente al problema de la desigualdad global. Esta tesis se sustenta en la sujeción de dicha tradición al marco socioeconómico capitalista como un presupuesto y en su optimismo frente al discurso de los derechos, que limita, más que fortalece, sus posibilidades de proporcionar soluciones estructurales. Para desarrollar este trabajo se ha hecho uso del análisis de contenido de carácter cualitativo de textos; al ser una investigación de carácter teórico, se da prioridad a las fuentes documentales.

show abstract

Section: La Teoría De La Justicia Global: Una Respuesta Liberalunclassified

Repensar la justicia global más allá del capitalismo

Garcia-Acevedo¹

2023

Tópicos (México)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most distributive egalitarians, for example, view both national and global inequalities as intrinsically bad (Caney, 2006). Relational views, on the other hand, hold that distributive inequalities are non-instrumentally bad in virtue of affecting social relations, and such relations are quite different within groups, regions, countries and across borders (Ip, 2016).…”

Section: Limitations and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic inequality and the long-term future

Schmidt,

Juijn

2023

Politics, Philosophy & Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why, if at all, should we object to economic inequality? Some central arguments – the argument from decreasing marginal utility for example – invoke instrumental reasons and object to inequality because of its effects. Such instrumental arguments, however, often concern only the static effects of inequality and neglect its intertemporal consequences. In this article, we address this striking gap and investigate income inequality's intertemporal consequences, including its potential effects on humanity's (very) long-term future. Following recent arguments around future generations and so-called longtermism, those effects might arguably matter more than inequality's short-term consequences. We assess whether we have instrumental reason to reduce economic inequality based on its intertemporal effects in the short, medium, and the very long term. We find a good short and medium-term instrumental case for lower economic inequality. We then argue, somewhat speculatively, that we have instrumental reasons for inequality reduction from a longtermist perspective too, primarily because greater inequality could increase existential risk. We thus have instrumental reasons to reduce inequality, regardless of which time-horizon we take. We then argue that from most consequentialist perspectives, this pro tanto reason also gives us all-things-considered reason. And even across most non-consequentialist views in philosophy, this argument gives us either an all-things-considered or at least weighty pro tanto reason against inequality.

show abstract

“… Exceptions are Nath (2011),Ip (2016), andWilson (2022).3 SeeKim (2016) on the "Korean Wave" and South Korea's international standing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s Wrong with Neocolonialism: The Case of Unequal Trade in Cultural Goods

CHAN,

PATTEN

2023

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unequal patterns of cultural exchange between the Global South and Global North are sometimes labeled “neo-colonial.” What, if anything, is wrong with these patterns? Debates surrounding cultural globalization have traditionally divided proponents of free trade and cultural preservation. The article develops an alternative account grounded in a global application of the ideal of social equality. Citizens of privileged societies ought to regard and relate to citizens of disadvantaged societies as social equals. Patterns of cultural exchange play an important role in promoting these relationships. Historically, colonized peoples were often regarded as inferior based on perceived failures to produce cultural achievements. To the extent that unequal global cultural production and exchange persist, the colonial pattern remains. The duty to relate to foreigners as equals implies that Global North countries should stop pressing for cultural trade concessions and instead favor the import of cultural goods from the Global South.

show abstract

Egalitarianism and Global Justice

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Repensar la justicia global más allá del capitalismo

Repensar la justicia global más allá del capitalismo

Economic inequality and the long-term future

What’s Wrong with Neocolonialism: The Case of Unequal Trade in Cultural Goods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About