Article

Principles of Generational Justice

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

The first step of justification is to deduce,such norms,from even more general and abstract moral principles behind them. In the following, five such principles shall be presented, briefly motivated and differentiated from other critically competing principles. Subsequently, it shall be examined,what follows from them with respect to present problems ofgenerational justice. Principle 1: Ethical hedonism, welfare orientation: The welfare of human beings and more highly developed ,animals ,is the ,only thing intrinsically (i.e. in itself) morally ,relevant. “Welfare”here means the (individually sensed) well-being multiplied with its duration.1 Principle 1 determines ,what ,carries an intrinsic ,moral value or a ,moral value in itself (i.e. independent of its consequences) and what can be considered as a final moral goal. In other words, principle 1 expresses what is really important. Thus, other things than welfare – like income, material resources or stable ecosystems – are also important, but not in an intrinsic way but only for the reason and to the extent of influencing welfare. In the first place, the factual degree of influence ,,,,,,,,,,,,

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

Article
Full-text available
The principle of intergenerational justice is much more common in the environmental sector, but it is becoming less unusual to consider it in a social and political context. The last economic crisis has significantly increased inequality among and across generations. In several EU countries, the number of NEETs raised dramatically after the recession. Moving from the Italian case, the paper focuses on the policies recently implemented to tackle the problem. Evidence shows that solutions exclusively focused on the labour market are not sufficient to activate a full social inclusion. Hence, the authors suggest considering intergenerational justice as intergenerational inclusion and in terms of active participation and empowerment in people's local communities. The analysis takes into account theoretical issues and practical implications of such a viewpoint, referring in particular to welfare systems and their effectiveness in facing this kind of challenge.
Chapter
“Sustainable development”—the concept hardly pursued in non-environmental Criminal Justice, still nascent in Crime Prevention, especially with respect to the role of women and children—is strongly linked to the concept of Environmental Justice, including via the nexus of social, economic and environmental dimensions, as well as the intergenerational context and the role of public participation in both notions. This chapter introduces an idea of Intergenerational Practice as a way to operationalize sustainable development and environmental justice principles on the local level. The importance of involving younger and older generations in communities and in sustainable development has been recognized on the international level. Intergenerational practice has been shown to enhance community cohesion, improve understanding among the younger and older population, increase participation in community development by the elderly persons, children and youth, and diminish the fear of crime in communities. Although not an explicit goal, such initiatives also offer equal opportunities to engage for younger and older women. Accordingly, this chapter provides generic clues for projecting the precepts of intergenerational learning and practice in Environmental Justice into Crime Prevention.
Chapter
Der durchgängige Befund der Beiträge in diesem Band lautet: Der demografische Wandel ist eine beachtliche Herausforderung für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, doch nichts, was die Gesellschaft schrecken muss. Es gibt hinreichend Gestaltungspotenzial. Der Weg zu einer Gesellschaft mit weniger Menschen bei gleichzeitig längerem Leben und „bunterer“ Zusammensetzung offeriert ebenso Chancen wie Herausforderungen. Bei schlüssigem und umfassendem Handeln sind die Chancen zu mobilisieren und die Herausforderungen zu bewältigen.
Article
Economic theory and the theory of justice entail a common feature: both are traditionally subject to a limited time horizon – the perspective of the present generation. Under such premises, efficiency and justice can easily be discussed and balanced. Neglecting a historical perspective, i.e., the long-term development under real-time conditions, significantly reduces the set of variables, and makes redundant the answers to questions like the following. •Where do the rules for analysis of incentive effects come from? Who formulates the “good constitution”? •How can individuals’ different sets of values be explained? •Why do different social subsystems occur for identical regulation systems? •How relevant is the intertemporal shift of scarcities – especially between physical capital and human capital – for the growth perspectives of future generations?
Article
Full-text available
self-rating affective scales [were] developed for repeated daily measurements Records were kept over a 42-day period by 14 female college students who also took two identical sets of tests (self and ideal Q-sort descriptions, Rosenzweig P-F test), once when they were elated, once when they were depressed The significant intra-individual changes in depression were: lower correlation of self and ideal, more unfavorable self-concept, increased extrapunitive responses; and reduced need-persistive responses." 21 refs.
Book
Welches sind die Fähigkeiten und Verfahren, mit denen wir erkennen, was moralisch richtig ist? Ausgehend von einem breiten Begriff des Moralischen versucht die Arbeit eine Logik des moralischen Argumentierens freizulegen. Dieser Logik entspricht, so die in Auseinandersetzung mit Kant, Hare, Habermas und Tugendhat entwickelte These, weder ein utilitaristisches noch ein egalitäres Moralprinzip, sondern nur eines, das auf die Optimierung des Wohls der am schlechtesten gestellten Person zielt. Das Prinzip der Optimierung führt zu einer Moral mit starken positiven Pflichten und erzwingt eine Neubestimmung des Verpflichtungscharakters der supererogatorischen Pflichten. In einem Anwendungsteil werden die Implikationen des Optimierungsprinzips für die Verteilung von Einkommen und Arbeit, für den Umfang medizinischer Versorgung und für die Probleme supranationaler und transgenerationaler Gerechtigkeit analysiert.
Chapter
A volume of studies of utilitarianism considered both as a theory of personal morality and a theory of public choice. All but two of the papers have been commissioned especially for the volume, and between them they represent not only a wide range of arguments for and against utilitarianism but also a first-class selection of the most interesting and influential work in this very active area. There is also a substantial introduction by the two editors. The volume will constitute an important stimulus and point of reference for a wide range of philosophers, economists and social theorists.
Article
This paper tries to provide a complete list and classification of the motives for acting in accordance with morals, to explain the mechanisms underlying the less transparent among these motives, and to probe which of these motives are suited for justifying morals. (1) After giving reasons for the importance of an empirical theory of moral motives for ethics, and after specifying the exact question of the present study (2) a general model of moral action (3) and a main classification of the motives for acting morally is presented. (4) Self-transcendent motives, (5) motives close to morals, like sympathy and respect, (6) and moral motives in the narrow sense, which proceed from moral judgements, are scrutinized in detail. Only the motives near to morals and interest in cooperation but not the moral motives in the narrow sense are suited for justifying morals. (7) A concluding sketch of the development of moral judgements shows that only motives near to morals and interest in cooperation (but not e.g. pure reason) are also the sources of autonomously developed moral criteria.
Article
Article
Apart from Rawls' maximin criterion, there are two main lines of correcting utilitarianism for considerations of distributional justice: egalitarianism (seeking to equalize utilities) and prioritarianism (giving more weight to improving the lot of those worse off). Though many people find prioritarianism appealing until now it has not been elaborated that much. The paper tries to help to fill several gaps left open. 1. A definition and mathematical distinction of egalitarian and prioritarian welfare functions will be given. 2. In an intuitive discussion of several candidates for prioritarian welfare functions one class of functions that are particularly apt to model prioritarian intuitions is filtered out, namely exponential functions. And some empirical findings are brought in for calibrating the functions' parameter for the degree of priority. 3. An internalistic justification of prioritarianism on the basis of sympathy is developed. Assuming an empirically founded (non-linear) function of our sympathy depending on the other person's well-being, it can be shown that prioritarianism optimises our sympathetic feelings.
Article
Soulevant, a la suite de T. Nagel, la question de la (re)distribution des benefices entre un enfant en bonne sante et un enfant handicape pour une famille qui doit decider ou non de demenager, l'A. etablit une distinction entre deux formes d'egalite, l'une dependant de l'etat de choses le plus mauvais et definissant un egalitarisme telique, fonde sur le principe de l'utilite; l'autre dependant de l'injustice et definissant un egalitarisme deontique, fonde sur l'idee de faire le mal. A cette alternative, l'A. prefere le point de vue de la priorite, fonde sur le besoin, en tant qu'il echappe a l'objection du nivellement par le bas
Book
Capitalist societies are full of unacceptable inequalities. Freedom is of paramount importance. These two convictions are widely shared across the world. Yet they often seem in complete contradiction with each other. Fighting inequality jeopardizes freedom; taking freedom seriously boosts inequality. What can be done? Can the circle be squared? Philippe Van Parijs offers a ground breaking solution to the dilemma. Assessing and rejecting the claims of both socialism and conventional capitalism, he presents a clear and compelling alternative vision of the just society: a capitalist society offering a substantial unconditional basic income to all its members. Moving beyond pure political theory, Van Parijs shows what his ideal of free society means in the real world by drawing out its controversial policy implications. Real Freedom for All will be essential reading for anyone concerned about the just society and the welfare state as we move into the twenty first century. Available in OSO: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/0198293577/toc.html
Article
Two core meanings of “utility” are distinguished. “Decision utility” is the weight of an outcome in a decision. “Experienced utility” is hedonic quality, as in Bentham's usage. Experienced utility can be reported in real time (instant utility), or in retrospective evaluations of past episodes (remembered utility). Psychological research has documented systematic errors in retrospective evaluations, which can induce a preference for dominated options. We propose a formal normative theory of the total experienced utility of temporally extended outcomes. Measuring the experienced utility of outcomes permits tests of utility maximization and opens other Unes of empirical research.
Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU and Developing Countries
  • Ian J Bateman
  • Kenneth Arrow
Bateman, Ian J.; Kenneth Arrow (1999): Valuing Environmental Preferences. Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation in the US, EU and Developing Countries. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 668 pp.
  • Richard B Brandt
Brandt, Richard B[rooker] (1979): A Theory of the Good and the Right. Oxford: Clarendon. xiii; 362 pp.
Intergenerationelle Gerechtigkeit. Eine Herausforderung für den ethischen Universalismus und die moralische Motivation
  • Christoph Lumer
Lumer, Christoph (1999a): Intergenerationelle Gerechtigkeit. Eine Herausforderung für den ethischen Universalismus und die moralische Motivation. In: Reinhold Mokrosch;
The Greenhouse. A Welfare Assessment and Some Morals
  • Christoph Lumer
Lumer, Christoph (2002a): The Greenhouse. A Welfare Assessment and Some Morals. Lanham, Md.; New York; Oxford: University Press of America. ix; 117 pp.
  • Mass Cambridge
Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell 1980; 1993. xvi; 367 pp.
Kansas: University of Kansas. 4°
  • Derek Parfit
Parfit, Derek (1991): Equality or Priority? The Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas, November 21, 1991. Kansas: University of Kansas. 4°; 42 pp.
Oxford: Clarendon. xii
  • L Sumner
Sumner, L[eonard] W[ayne] (1996): Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon. xii; 239 pp. Temkin, Larry S. (1993): Inequality. New York; Oxford: Oxford U.P. xiii; 352 pp.
Conditions of Happiness. Dordrecht; Boston; Lancaster: Reidel. x; 461 pp. Wenz
  • Ruut Veenhoven
Veenhoven, Ruut (1984): Conditions of Happiness. Dordrecht; Boston; Lancaster: Reidel. x; 461 pp. Wenz, Peter (1988): Environmental Justice. New York: SUNY Press.