Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice

Introduction, Guillaume Tusseau Part 1: A Manuscript's Odyssey 1. Constructing the Text: Jeremy Bentham's Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Philip Schofield Part 2: The Foundation of General Legal Theory (I): International looks at Limits 2. The Theory of the Legal Norm: Typology of Legal Beings, Rafael Hernandez Marin 3. The Theory of the Legal order, Pierluigi Chiassoni 4. Bentham's Deontic Logic, Jose Juan Moreso 5. An Old English Tale? Bentham's Theory of The Force of a Law, Guillaume Tusseau 6. Of the Limits of the Civil Branch of Jurisprudence: Background, definitions and limits of Bentham's discussion on civil law in Anne Brunon-Ernst Part 3: The Foundation of General legal Theory(II): External looks at Limits 7. Bentham's Limits and Austin, Michael Lobban 8. Bentham's Command versus Hart's Authoritative Reason. An Examination of the Principal Interpretations of Bentham's Imperative Theory of Law in Hart's 'Commands and Authoritative Legal Reasons', Xiaobo Zhai 9. Bentham's Limits and Hohfeld, Andrew Halpin 10. A Commitment to Naturalism, Bentham and the Legal Realists, Francesca Poggi and Francesco Ferraro 11. Bentham and Kelsen, Michel van de Kerchove 12. Bentham's Limits, Deontic Logic, and the Formal Representation of a Normative System, Lars Lindahl Part 4: Limits and the Architecture of Bentham's Project 13. Of the Limits and the Theory of Legislation, David Lieberman, James W. and Isabel Coffroth 14. Limits and Indirect Legislation, Stephen Engelmann 15. Towards the Pannomion: Limits and Bentham's French Manuscripts, Emmanuelle de Champs 16. Reducing Limits of the Realm of Possibilities: Law, Action and Will in Jeremy Bentham's Thought, Malik Bozzo-Rey 17. The Notion of Limit in Bentham's Theory of Fictions, Jean-Pierre Clero 18. The Legislator's Tormented Soul: Utility as Practical Reason in Bentham's Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, Denis Baranger

This chapter describes some of the main areas of interaction, overlap, or mutual concern between the disciplines of anthropology and philosophy, primarily as these are reflected in contemporary moral and political philosophy in the Anglophone tradition. The discussion is focussed on three broad themes, each falling under one of the main branches of moral and political philosophy as conventionally understood, namely ‘moral theory’, ‘applied ethics’, and ‘metaethics’. Under the heading of ‘moral theory’, the focus of discussion is the relationship between ideas of the good, the right, and the virtuous. Under the heading of ‘applied ethics’, the focus is on ideas of equality, justice, and cosmopolitan ideals. Under the heading of ‘metaethics’, the focus is on debates about interpretation, difference, and relativism. In each case, an attempt is made to connect some of the most influential literature in recent moral and political philosophy with relevant work in social anthropology.

We live in exciting times - a generalization that can be extended contemporary philosophy, and particularly contemporary work in ethics. Not only is shop-worn debate between deontologists and utilitarians no longer only game in town, with rise of such vigorous competitors as and an of care, but traditional giants in this field are being creatively reinterpreted as well, as is indicated by spate of recent efforts at systematic rapprochement between, say, Kantian and Aristotelian ethics. One noteworthy contribution this renaissance of creative ethical thinking is represented by Stephen Darwall's efforts construct a new account of moral obligation from what he calls in his 2006 book of same name the standpoint.1 Darwall's account is based upon a careful and ingenious analysis of peculiar normative force of so-called second-person which are kind of reasons that can be addressed only by one person another, and which count as reasons only because both parties recognize practical authority of other make certain demands simply by virtue of his or her dignity as a person. That is say, recognize such a reason at all is presuppose authority of other address one in this way. As Darwall puts it: to enter intelligibly into stance and make claims on and demands of one another at all, you and I must presuppose that we share a common second-personal authority, competence, and responsibility simply as free and rational agents.2 Darwall's claim is that moral obligation is ultimately based upon such an appeal such reasons, and thus he offers a new and in many ways compelling theory of ethics from a secondperson a theory which he is able apply creatively an impressive number of traditional puzzles in moral philosophy. It is not my intention on this occasion explore, explicate, or criticize Darwall's ethics. Instead, I will be focusing upon a relatively minor feature of his exposition of his position: namely, his repeated claim that his new ethical theory is, in fact, anticipated by and some degree based upon that of J. G. Fichte. This claim is stated in chapter 10 of Darwall's book, Dignity and Second Person: Variations on Fichtean Themes, and is defended in more detail in his contribution 2005 issue of International Yearbookfor German Idealism, in an essay titled and Second-Person Standpoint.3 In responding Darwall's claims, I find myself in a somewhat ticklish situation: On one hand, I sincerely admire his efforts construct an ethics from a standpoint, and I also salute him for trying reanimate one of most original ideas (that is, his theory of intersubjective recognition by way of a summons, which Darwall calls Fichte's Point) and connect it so directly concerns of contemporary philosophy. And I readily concede that ethical theory can profit from a new examination of secondperson and an investigation of presuppositions of same. On other hand, as a self-designated Fichte scholar, I feel that it is my somewhat unhappy duty point out that kind of ethical theory Darwall envisions bears little relation indeed own but instead imports arguments from philosophy of right or system of natural law into - for Fichte at least - very different realm of ethics, while resolutely ignoring own ethical theory. I will therefore begin my remarks by contrasting genuinely standpoint of philosophy of law or civil justice (Recht) propounded by Fichte in his 1796/97 Grundlage des Naturrechts with what he himself insists is very different standpoint of moral philosophy expounded in his 1798 System der Sittenlehre. And then, in second part of this essay, I will provide a brief exegesis of one of main lines of argument from Part I of Sittenlehre, an exegesis intended demonstrate that resolutely first-person standpoint of latter. …

This chapter explicates many of the words of Plato’s Socrates on the problem of distributive justice. One of the main points of this chapter is to demonstrate how the Socratic Anti-Mouthpiece Interpretation can and ought to function when it interprets the words placed in Socrates’ mouth by Plato. One of the leading contemporary philosophers of Plato, Richard Kraut , argues that Plato has a theory of distributive justice. However, while this chapter will argue that there is no theory of distributive justice found in the words of Plato’s Socrates, there are philosophically interesting concepts and arguments which are articulated and may be useful to contemporary moral, legal, social and political philosophers.

On the Status of Rights

Reviewed by: A Short History of Distributive Justice Daniel H. Frank Samuel Fleischacker . A Short History of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Pp. xii + 190. Cloth, $39.95. This slim volume is a fine piece of philosophical and historical scholarship. Fleischacker's thesis is simple and straightforward: Distributive justice—the state guarantee to provide material goods to all its citizens—is a modern (Enlightenment) notion, and the guarantee of aid to the poor, grounded in a view of the poor as deserving of respect, is not to be found before the eighteenth century. Aristotle's notion of distributive (proportional) justice is no exception to this, for what is distributed in Aristotle's view, honor and political office, is indexed to merit. For Fleischacker, modern theories of distributive justice are not theories of desert. Indeed, because pre-modern ones are grounded in desert, they are consistent with a view of the poor that takes the latter to be utterly bereft of the kind of rights that ground institutional support for eliminating poverty and raising the poor out of their plight. Fleischacker deals successfully with the possible candidacy for social and political egalitarianism of the natural law tradition of Cicero and Aquinas. A counter to Aristotle's theory in a way, the natural law tradition did not, could not, underwrite a state commitment to the poor and their material needs, for natural law from Cicero onwards very sharply distinguished between justice and beneficence, and understood material aid to the poor in the form of charity as stemming from beneficence, not strict justice. It will be immediately seen that once distribution is sundered from justice, and becomes an exercise of the (personal) virtue of beneficence, then the plight and the betterment of the poor ceases to be a civic duty. The poor and their poverty become a cause to be taken up, an arena in which propertied individuals or the Church might display a certain generosity of spirit to the downtrodden. But such generosity and beneficence is an elective, not stemming from an entitlement "to such aid by virtue of . . . membership in a polis, much less membership in the human race" (50). The history that Fleischacker relates takes a decisive turn in the eighteenth century, and the critical figures in the story are Rousseau, Adam Smith, Kant, Babeuf (the French revolutionary), and Fichte. In varying ways these Enlightenment thinkers come to a clear understanding of the poor as human beings deserving of respect and, as importantly, full-fledged citizens of the state (on account of their simple humanity). With such political egalitarianism in place, distributive justice in its modern (and secular) connotation is not far behind. A sense of duty and compassion replaces the virtues of beneficence and mercy [End Page 497] as the springs for eradicating poverty, or at least for providing the minimal goods required for developing basic human potentials. For his part, Adam Smith was a strong advocate of public schooling, of using public funds for all citizens (63). A certain optimism about alleviating the plight of the poor, indeed transforming their material condition, is here presumed. The nineteenth century saw some reactions to this optimism. A certain throwback to earlier centuries revealed itself in the social Darwinism of Spencer, who championed property rights over all else. His libertarianism, like Nozick's more recent variant, positively "disallows state-run aid for the poor" (89). For Spenser, the optimism of the Enlightenment thinkers about transforming the plight of the poor in the name of justice and humanity is matched by a hard-hearted assessment about the advantage to the state of the demise of the poor in the name of property rights. But the century also produced the great Sidgwick and the classical Utilitarians, who, while not emphasizing the rights of individuals as did their Enlightenment forebears, were immensely keen on problems of the distribution of scarce resources and on real issues of public policy. Fleischacker's story ends with Rawls, who gives the fullest articulation of distributive justice as a theory that is grounded in both the (Kantian, anti-Utilitarian) sanctity of the individual and a (Utilitarian and Marxist-inspired) social and political activism that understands that...

Two competing theories of justice are currently dominating discussion within contemporary Anglo-American moral, social, political, and legal philosophy. The Welfare-State Liberal theory of John Rawls, developed most fully in his book A Theory of Justice [13], contains a sustained defense of the partial redistribution of wealth within society in order to improve the position of the most unfortunate members of society. The Libertarian theory of Robert Nozick, presented in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia [12], is based on the claims that justice is the respecting of people’s rights, that people’s rights are respected when they are allowed to keep and control that to which they are entitled, and that people are entitled to any holding which they have legitimately acquired — that is, without using force, theft, or fraud (activities which would violate the rights of others). Since the kind of redistribution called for by Rawls’ theory of justice would necessarily involve taking from some people (primarily through taxation) holdings to which they have a right, Nozick argues that an application of Rawls’ theory will have unjust consequences: it will fail to show the proper respect for people’s rights upon which any correct theory of justice must be based.KeywordsRational AgentOriginal PositionSocial ContractBorderline CaseMoral ClaimThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The ideas of justice in political theory as expressed by John Rawls and Robert Nozick are contrasted in this study. Mostly from his ideas of liberty and the Difference Principle, Rawls argues using his theory of Justice as Fairness for a distributive approach whereby disparities are allowed only if they aid the least advantaged in society. On the other hand, Nozick underlines in his Entitlement Theory the defence of personal rights and lawful acquisition of property, therefore favouring a limited state and opposing redistributive justice. This study juxtaposes Nozick's advocacy for individual liberty, free market transactions, and minimal government involvement with Rawls's focus on social welfare, equality, and state intervention. Particularly in discussions on taxes, property rights, and welfare policies, the study highlights the ongoing relevance of both theories in contemporary political philosophy. This is achieved by analysing significant differences, such as their perspectives on equality, distributive justice, and the role of the government. Emphasising that Rawls provides a framework for resolving social inequality, the last part of the paper evaluates the application and limits of both theories while underlining that Nozick makes a strong case for maintaining personal liberty. From these different points of view, current political rhetoric still shapes debates on justice, equality, and rights.

Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy has often been criticised for ignoring a crucial dimension of community in its account of the lives that agents ought to lead. Historical and contemporary critics alike often paint Kant's moral theory, with its emphasis on rationality, as overly formalistic and unrealistically isolating. Against these criticisms, Kate A. Moran argues that Kant's moral philosophy reserves a central role for community in several important respects. In the first part of her book, Moran asserts that Kant's most developed account of the goal toward which agents ought to strive is actually a kind of ethical community. Indeed, Kant claims that agents have a duty to pursue this goal. Moran argues that this duty entails a concern for the development of agents' moral characters and capacities for moral reasoning, as well as the institutions and relationships that aid in this development. Next, Moran examines three specific social institutions and relationships that, according to Kant, help develop moral character and moral reasoning. In three separate chapters, Moran examines the role that moral education, friendship, and participation in civil society play in developing agents' moral capacities. Far from being mere afterthoughts in Kant's moral system, Moran maintains that these institutions are crucial in bringing about the end of an ethical community. The text draws on a wide range of Immanuel Kant's writings, including his texts on moral and political philosophy and his lectures on ethics, pedagogy, and anthropology. Though the book is grounded in an analysis of Kant's writing, it also puts forward the novel claim that Kant's theory is centrally concerned with the relationships we have in our day-to-day lives. It will, therefore, be an invaluable tool in understanding both the complexities ofKant's moral philosophy, and how even a liberal, deontological theory like Kant's can give a satisfying account of the importance of community in our moral lives.

Organizational citizenship behavior can be defined as voluntary and spontaneous behaviors that extend beyond employees' normal job duties. Employee's perception of justice in compensation programs, organizational procedures and interpersonal behaviors can have a key role in developing and encouraging OCB. In order to study the relationship between organizational justice perception and OCB, factor analysis technique has been used to test the validity of related questions and by using path analysis (structural equation modeling) this relationship has been examined as well. The research findings indicate that there is a meaningful relationship between organizational justice perception and OCB, and among three dimensions of justice, interactional justice has the highest correlation with OCB in compare with distributive and procedural justice. The results also show that there is relationship among three dimensions of justice. Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice.

This paper discusses the concept of public value in relation to government ICT investment from three perspectives – theory foundations, assessment methods, and an application example. The discussion of theory foundations combines attention to the roots of the concept of public value in political philosophy and public administration. The origins of the concept of public value are discussed in terms of foundational ideas in political and moral philosophy about the nature of the good society: utilitarianism and the social contract. The concern with public value, or utility, in early Western moral and political philosophy is central to the two major schools of thought, utilitarian and social contractarian. The social order that produces the greatest good or utility for the greatest number is preferred in the utilitarian perspective. The contractarian view holds that a good society should be based on shared principles and arrangements that avoid the potential evils of unconstrained greed. Though these two views political and moral philosophy differ, they weave similar connections among the basic concept of value, individual interests, societal interests, and institutional forms. These concepts and connections are basic to the public value framework.

Environmental issues and challenges in this era caused an attention to software strategies (environmental behavior and ethics) alongside hardware solutions (to produce environmental technologies). In other hand, the evolution of environmental behavioral theories caused a hope for understanding human-environment relations. Using analytical-critical method, the present study aimed to explain and critic western theories of moral then present Islamic theories of moral behaviors. Western scientists present some moral behavior theories in relationship with environment like Theories of reasoned action, planned behavior, norm-action and value-belief-norm. Despite, vast diffusion and using of these theories, they were criticized for neglecting moral variables like moral norms and human value orientations. In other hand, Islamic philosophers and scientists have moral behavior theories that seems are cope with ethics spiritual characteristics of Islamic societies. In present study some Islamic theories are presented. It is recommended that Islamic scientists at philosophy of ethics and moral psychology try to inference moral behavioral theories from Islamic resources; and then apply these theories in field researches in order to improve their predictability power. Please cite this article as: Menatizadeh M, Karimi-Gougheri H. Critical Analysis of Environmental Moral Theories: Presenting Islamic Moral Theories. Iran J Bioethics 2016; 6(20): 99-125.

This study investigates job satisfaction and its effects on organizational commitment, where procedural justice and distributive justice are used as mediation variables. The method used in this study is a case study on employees of educational institutions in Purwokerto. Questionnaires were given to 74 employees from the management level to the staff level as respondents. Data analysis technique used is the analysis of PLS (Partial Least Square) using SmartPLS 3.0. The results showed that Job Satisfaction has a significant effect on Procedural Justice and Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice has no significant effect on Commitment of Oganization, while Distributive Justice has a significant effect on Organizational Commitment. It also proves that distributive justice mediates the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment, but procedural justice can not mediate the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Keywords: distributive justice, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, procedural justice.

Contemporary political philosophers have explored issues related to global justice, such as global inequality and absolute poverty. In particular, they have mainly concerned with the ‘scope’ of distributive justice. Whereas Statism have stressed that the scope is limited within domestic realms, Cosmopolitanism have claimed that it is applicable at the global scale. By rejecting accounts from both camps, this paper explores the possibility of distribution among the nations as international distributive justice. As cosmopolitans have aptly criticized, statists have overlooked that institutional relations which are presumed to trigger distributive justice are not limited to those within states. Cosmopolitan, however, have also failed to provide us with grounds by which they have denied the role of state as one of crucial institutional relations. If we understand institutional relations as a precondition for distributive justice, it is necessary to seek international distributive justice which compatibles with domestic distributive justice. Also, because of the interdependency between domestic and international distributive justice, latter is as important as former.

تحقیق حاضر به بررسی تاثیر عدالت ادراک شده (شامل عدالت توزیعی، رویه ای و تعاملی) بر کیفیت خدمات ادراک شده و تمایلات رفتاری مشتری (اعتماد، تبلیغات شفاهی و تمایل به بازگشت به شرکت) می پردازد. نمونه آماری تحقیق را 120 نفر از مشتریان شرکت بیمه ایران در شهر شیراز، که دارای بیمه اتومبیل بوده و برای دریافت خسارت به شرکت مراجعه کرده اند تشکیل می دهد. به منظور آزمون مدل مفهومی تحقیق از رویکرد همبستگی و تحلیل رگرسیون خطی(به وسیله نرم افزار SPSS ) استفاده کرده ایم. نتایج نشان می دهند که عدالت رویه ای و عدالت توزیعی بر کیفیت خدمات ادراک شده تاثیرگذارند. از آنجا که عدالت توزیعی و عدالت رویه ای بر اعتماد، تبلیغات شفاهی و تمایل به بازگشت، از طریق کیفیت ادراک شده تاثیرات برجسته ای می گذارند، کیفیت ادراک شده به عنوان یک متغیر میانجی مهم شناسایی شد. تاثیر عدالت رویه ای بر کیفیت ادراک شده مشتری، قوی تر از تاثیر عدالت توزیعی است. علاوه بر این، نقش میانجی گری اعتماد بین کیفیت خدمات ادراک شده و تبلیغات شفاهی/تمایل به بازگشت، قابل توجه است.