Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:10:56.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justice, Pluralism, and the Egalitarian Ethos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2020

KRISTIN VOIGT
KRISTIN VOIGT*
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
*<kristin.voigt@mcgill.ca>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the central aims of Kyle Johannsen’s monograph, A Conceptual Investigation of Justice, is to defend the idea that we should think of justice as a fundamental value—a value that can come into conflict with other fundamental values. This pluralism is associated in particular with G.A. Cohen’s work and his critique of John Rawls’s theory of justice. In this commentary, I sketch some of the implications of Cohen’s pluralism for a Cohenite ethos of justice.

L’un des objectifs centraux du livre de Kyle Johannsen, A Conceptual Investigation of Justice, consiste à défendre l’idée selon laquelle nous devrions concevoir la justice comme une valeur fondamentale pouvant entrer en conflit avec d’autres valeurs fondamentales. Ce type de pluralisme est principalement associé aux travaux de G.A. Cohen et à sa critique de la théorie de la justice de John Rawls. Dans le cadre ce commentaire, je propose une esquisse des implications du pluralisme de Cohen et de ce à quoi pourrait ressembler un ethos de justice à la Cohen.

Keywords

egalitarianismethosjusticepluralismdistributive justicefairness
Type
Book Symposium: Kyle Johannsen’s A Conceptual Investigation of Justice
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 721 - 728
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2020 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cohen, G.A. 1989 “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice.” Ethics 99 (4): 906–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 1999 “Expensive Tastes and Multiculturalism,” in Multiculturalism, Liberalism and Democracy, edited by Bhargava, R., Bagchi, A.K., and Sudarshan, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 80–100.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2001 If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2003 “Facts and Principles.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (3): 211–245.10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00211.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2004 “Expensive Taste Rides Again,” in Dworkin and His Critics, edited by Justine Burley. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–29.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2006 “Luck and Equality: A Reply to Hurley.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (2): 439–446.10.1111/j.1933-1592.2006.tb00571.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2008 Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674029651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2009 Why Not Socialism? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Johannsen, Kyle, 2018 A Conceptual Investigation of Justice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Preda, Adina, and Voigt, Kristin 2019 “Shameless Luck Egalitarians: Luck Egalitarianism, Shame and (Self) Respect.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, 1999 A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Voigt, Kristin 2007 “The Harshness Objection: Is Luck Egalitarianism Too Harsh on the Victims of Option Luck?” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4): 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar