Fiduciary Representation and Deliberative Engagement with Children*

Leib, Ethan J.; Ponet, David L.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2011.00398.x

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…XI ch. 6; Rousseau, 1968, p. III.i.7; Criddle, 2017; Criddle & Fox‐Decent, 2016; Fox‐Decent, 2005, 2014; Leib & Ponet, 2012). When exercising powers, government agents are bound by a duty of loyalty to act in the public interest in good faith, as they understand it, even if false, and a duty of care to do so diligently and competently.…”

Section: Public Interest and Fiduciary Dutiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good governance: Contemporary issues in political philosophy

Kirby

2021

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The legislature and the judiciary have been a constant focus of contemporary political philosophy. However, the executive – ‘the government’ itself – has been comparatively neglected. Today, this is changing with a well‐spring of new work that bears upon what we might call the ideal of ‘good governance’, that is, how governments (and/or their agents) should exercise their powers. This review paper begins by clarifying the concepts of ‘governance’ and ‘good’ governance (§1). It then highlights five sets of values, working nominally from the most foundational constraints on the exercise of government power to those that should guide the exercise of discretion: legitimacy and rule of law (§2); respect and trustworthiness (§3); efficiency and rationality (§4); public participation and accountability (§5); and the public interest and fiduciary duties (§6).

show abstract

Section: Public Interest and Fiduciary Dutiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Good governance: Contemporary issues in political philosophy

Kirby

2021

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While not necessarily 'orphans' of liberal theory, liberals have only relatively recently been giving proper attention to children and their rights. We have moved on from the idea that children are their parents' property, but the jury is still out on whether they are their parents' moral equals (Brennan and Noggle, 1997: 2), and they are systematically excluded from the same rights in real-world liberal societies and within liberal theory (Brennan and Noggle, 1997;Leib and Ponet, 2012;Schrag, 2004). It would be ethically problematic to discriminate against children, simply because they are children, and would perhaps be equivalent to discriminating against women, or ethnic minorities, because they are women, or ethnic minorities (Fowler, 2014: 96).…”

Section: IImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 In this article, I argue that the intuition cannot be defended from a liberal position committed to equal children's rights. 4 I make a case for some content of a particular account of those rights, aiming to speak to the wider debate about children's rights within the liberal paradigm (Brennan and Noggle, 1997;Brighouse and Swift, 2014;Clayton, 2006;Cowden, 2016;Feinberg, 1992;Fowler, 2010Fowler, , 2014Gutmann, 1980;Jaworska and Tannenbaum, 2018;Leib and Ponet, 2012;Liao, 2015;Mills, 2004;Noggle, 2018;O'Neill, 1988;Schrag, 2004). It must be acknowledged that this topic is highly politically sensitive and controversial, not least because anti-genital cutting arguments can and have been highjacked by racists, anti-Semites and the culturally intolerant (Cowburn and Sharman, 2017;Rassbach, 2016;Tuchman, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The child’s right to genital integrity

Townsend

2019

Philosophy & Social Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People in liberal societies tend to feel a little uncomfortable talking about male genital cutting, but generally do not think it is morally abhorrent. But female genital cutting is widely considered to be morally repulsive. This common social intuition – that male genital cutting is benign, but female genital cutting is impermissibly harmful – is mirrored in the policies of real-world liberal governments and real-world international liberal institutions. The difference in attitudes towards these practices could be explained by investigation into the cultural biases of people in liberal societies, where social preference is given to practices conducted by majority and established minority group members over those practised by members of marginalised groups. In this article, I argue that the intuition cannot be defended from a liberal position committed to equal children’s rights. I defend children’s equal right to bodily integrity. I claim that in practice children’s right to bodily integrity is conditional on it serving their greater interests – which sometimes require adults to interfere with children’s bodies in ways that we would not interfere with adults’ bodies. But, I argue, this practical conditionality ought not to mean that the state treat male and female children differently. I make a case for the child’s inviolable right to genital integrity, based on the relationship between the child’s genital integrity and their sexual and genital autonomy in adulthood. I outline and respond to potential criticisms, namely that (i) male genital cutting has medical benefits that outweigh its harms and that (ii) female genital cutting is more socially harmful than male genital cutting.

show abstract

Fiduciary Discretion

Tauschinsky¹

2019

A Fiduciary Approach to Delegated and Implementing Rule-Making in the EU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fiduciary Representation and Deliberative Engagement with Children*

Cited by 10 publications

References 32 publications

Good governance: Contemporary issues in political philosophy

Good governance: Contemporary issues in political philosophy

The child’s right to genital integrity

Fiduciary Discretion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About