The natural duty of justice in non-ideal circumstances: On the moral demands of institution building and reform

Valentini, Laura

doi:10.1177/1474885117742094

Cited by 26 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rummens and Abts make the point that mainstream parties should not ignore the interests of NLDP supporters but listen to them and try to accommodate them in ways that do not compromise liberal democracy. In a sense, this response is in line with a recent argument by Bertoa and Rama, who identify the main cause of support to 'Anti-Establishment Parties' in a crisis among mainstream parties (Bértoa and Rama, 2020;2021). The latter have become indistinct from one another through a process of convergence towards the median voter and through cartelisation.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Political Responsessupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Non-ideal theory also discusses the duties of various actors to contribute to the realisation of the ideal. Especially within the justice literature, the notion of a natural duty of all relevant actors to contribute to realisation of just institutions figures centrally (Valentini 2021). Despite some disagreement, the considered view seems to be that as long as the costs -which in turn will depend on contribution of others -are not prohibitively high, all relevant actors should do what they can to realise the ideal.…”

Section: Non-ideal Theory and The Non-compliance With Liberal Democra...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The variability of the costs implies that the obligation or duty to realise the ideal cannot be a perfect duty but only an imperfect one. In other words, it is a duty of beneficence and not of justice (Valentini 2021). This article is an instance of non-ideal theorizing.…”

Section: Non-ideal Theory and The Non-compliance With Liberal Democra...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Defending democracy politically

Olsen

2021

Acta Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liberal democracy is being challenged by non-liberal-democratic parties (NLDPs). The literature on 'protecting democracy' discusses what kind of legal, cultural, socio-economic, and political measures are right for countering NLDPs. This article focuses on political measures such as exclusion, collaboration and policy co-optation, which seem particularly promising because in contrast to other measures, they do not rely on state coercion but on the voluntary reactions of mainstream parties to their political peers. Still, collaboration and cooptation may involve compromises with core principles of liberal democracy. Based on the ethics of compromise, the article therefore asks to what extent it is permissible and obligatory for mainstream parties to venture into compromises in order to safeguard liberal democratic principles. It investigates three scenarios, one in which NLDPs are in opposition and two in which they are in government and respectively have/have not (yet) altered liberal democratic institutions. It argues that the space for compromise is larger the greater the threat is to the latter, but also that certainty about the effects of compromise is essential to their permissibility. Where certainty is lacking, the default political measure should be exclusion due to the moral loss and responsibility involved in making compromises.

show abstract

Section: Effectiveness Of Political Responsessupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Non-ideal Theory and The Non-compliance With Liberal Democra...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defending democracy politically

Olsen

2021

Acta Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 For rare philosophical discussions that explicitly engage with the problem of transition see Buchanan (2007), Gilabert (2012), Valentini (2017). Further works that address various aspects of the cosmopolitan transition relevant for our argument include Pasternak (2012), Ulaş (2016Ulaş ( , 2017).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cosmopolitanism and unipolarity: the theory of hegemonic transition

Belic¹,

Miklósi²

2020

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosoph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cosmopolitans typically argue that the realization of cosmopolitan ideals requires the creation of global political institutions of some kind. While the precise nature of the necessary institutions is widely discussed, the problem of the transition to such an order has received less attention. In this paper, we address what we take to be a crucial aspect of the problem of transition: we argue that it involves a moral coordination problem because there are several morally equivalent paths to reform the existing order, but suitably placed and properly motivated political agents need to converge on a single route for the transition to be successful. It is, however, unclear how such a convergence can take place since the duty to create global institutions does not single out any coordination point. We draw on the so-called theory of hegemonic stability to address this problem and conceptualize what we call the hegemonic transition. From an explanatory point of view, we rely on the theory's insights to explain how a hegemon may contribute to the creation of a rules-based international order by providing salient coordination points and accordingly, enabling coordination among states. From the normative point of view, we identify necessary conditions for the hegemonic transition to be morally permissible. To the extent that these conditions obtain, other states have pro tanto moral reasons to follow the salient coordination point provided by the leading state.

show abstract

“…En efecto, cuando existen grandes déficits de justicia (en especial distributiva), el deber natural de apoyar las instituciones justas podría volverse menos exigente y perder fuerza, lo cual es un verdadero problema. Esta cuestión fue destacada porValentini (2017), quien considera que el deber natural de justicia tiene, en tales circunstancias de injusticia, grandes limitaciones y que en realidad la mayor parte del trabajo normativo lo realiza el deber natural de beneficencia.…”

unclassified

El problema de la obligación política y el deber natural de apoyar las instituciones justas en la teoría de John Rawls

Magoja¹

2021

revfil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La pregunta acerca de por qué las personas deben obedecer el derecho introduce uno de los temas más complejos y discutidos de la filosofía política y jurídica contemporáneas. Entre las diversas respuestas ofrecidas en la literatura científica, Rawls formuló la teoría del deber natural de apoyar y promover las instituciones justas. El objetivo de este trabajo es ofrecer un análisis crítico de esta propuesta y mostrar cómo se podrían superar algunas de sus debilidades mediante un enfoque que enfatice la importancia de preservar un esquema social beneficioso que ofrezca un marco de posibilidades para el desarrollo moral de las personas.

show abstract

The natural duty of justice in non-ideal circumstances: On the moral demands of institution building and reform

Cited by 26 publications

References 45 publications

Defending democracy politically

Defending democracy politically

Cosmopolitanism and unipolarity: the theory of hegemonic transition

El problema de la obligación política y el deber natural de apoyar las instituciones justas en la teoría de John Rawls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About