Need-Based Justice from the Perspective of Philosophy

Siebel, Mark; Schramme, Thomas

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44121-0_2

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most influentially, Wiggins suggested that BN are “entrenched” in the sense that their nonsatisfaction leads to harm because of “laws of nature, unalterable and invariable environmental facts, or facts about human constitution” (1998: 15). That is, a need can only count as basic if for humans there is no (or hardly any) way to avoid being (seriously) harmed when this need remains unsatisfied (e.g., Siebel & Schramme, 2020 ; Thomson, 2005 ).…”

Section: The Nature Of Basic Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Any account of BN‐related trade‐offs will again crucially depend on general methodological decisions (see Siebel & Schramme, 2020 ). For example, proponents of needs theories have regarded normative principles as justified based on their own a priori normative intuitions (Wiggins, 1998 ), assumptions about the normative intuitions of ordinary people (Braybrooke, 1987 ; Copp 1995 , 1998 ) and scientific data about these intuitions (Bauer et al., under review ; Brock, 2005 ; Hassoun, 2009 ; Miller 2007 , 2020 ).…”

Section: The Normativity Of Basic Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Basic needs in normative contexts

Pölzler

2021

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In answering normative questions, researchers sometimes appeal to the concept of basic needs. Their guiding idea is that our first priority should be to ensure that everybody is able to meet these needs—to have enough in terms of food, water, shelter, and so on. This article provides an opinionated overview of basic needs in normative contexts. Any basic needs theory must answer three questions: (1) What are basic needs? (2) To what extent do basic needs generate reasons for action and how are these reasons to be understood? (3) How are basic needs and their satisfaction to be measured? I address these questions in turn. Then I also briefly discuss the theoretical potential of appealing to basic needs in normative contexts. It turns out that future research in this area could benefit from a higher degree of interdisciplinarity and methodological reflection, and that, generally speaking, basic needs theories are more promising than they have often been claimed to be.

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of Basic Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Normativity Of Basic Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic needs in normative contexts

Pölzler

2021

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And whilst the BHN approach has largely been superseded as a policy programme, that framework continues to be highly influential in moral and political theory (Gasper, 2004, pp. 131-162;Reader, 2006;Siebel & Schramme, 2020). In those circles it has been put to a number of uses: as a grounding for human rights (Doyal & Gough, 1991;Floyd, 2011;D.…”

Section: Basic Human Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this way human needs pertain not just to facts about human physiology, but to an evaluative notion of a minimally decent (or dignified, flourishing, etc.) human life (Siebel & Schramme, 2020).…”

Section: Basic Human Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…69-71;S. C. Miller, 2012, p. 40;Reader, 2006;Siebel & Schramme, 2020). The problem, however, is that Nussbaum's account has several distinctive features -not least her focus on capabilities rather than needs, and her politically liberal methodology -that make it difficult to provide a straightforward categorisation, and impossible to do so in the space available.…”

Section: Basic Human Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Basic human needs: abstraction, indeterminacy and the political account of need

Boss

2021

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosoph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The basic human needs approach contends that the needs which matter -the basic needs -are human needs. This article conducts a critical examination of that approach, and finds it wanting. My claim is that the abstract, indeterminate nature of human needs makes it impossible to establish their normative priority (or 'basicness'). I begin by showing why human needs are necessarily abstract. This follows from the standard response given by basic human needs theorists to the problem of cultural diversity: to avoid favouring one way of life over others, and to plausibly apply universally, human needs must be specified at a high level of generality. The problem, however, is that this abstract specification undermines the capacity of basic human needs to offer guidance in concrete contexts. The approach thus requires some account of the properties which shape the concrete specification of basic human needs. However, the special status thus afforded to those properties (what I call 'specifiers') undermines the arguments deployed to establish the basicness of human needs. Having rejected the basic human needs approach, I finish by sketching an alternative: namely, the political account of needs.

show abstract

Conclusion: Elements of a Theory of Need-Based Justice

Kittel,

Traub

2024

Priority of Needs?

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Need-Based Justice from the Perspective of Philosophy

Cited by 12 publications

References 68 publications

Basic needs in normative contexts

Basic needs in normative contexts

Basic human needs: abstraction, indeterminacy and the political account of need

Conclusion: Elements of a Theory of Need-Based Justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About