Political theorists disagree on the origin of justice. According to the cosmopolitan conception of justice, duties of justice are pre-political and universal. According to the political conception of justice, on the other hand, full duties of justice arise within and only within the context of a political community. Which one of these conceptions one adopts will have a comprehensive impact on ethical issues concerning global justice, such as migration ethics and foreign assistance. In this paper I argue that the political conception is problematic, since it cannot be applied in cases of anarchy. Since anarchic societies are not politically organized, the political conception implies that they are not bound by full duties of justice. Thus, the political conception is unable to criticize some rival theories of justice, such as anarchistic libertarianism, for being unjust. Reversely, if one does find anarchic societies unjust, this intuition speaks against the political conception of justice, but in favor of the cosmopolitan conception. I illustrate my argument by applying it in the case of liberal egalitarianism.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD / The aim of my research is twofold: to analyze the discourses of affective trauma, injustice and identity in the personal language narratives of the Academic Literacy (AL) students enrolled in University of the Western Cape’s (UWC) Bachelor of Education Degree. The other major objective is to examine these discourses through an autoethnographic and egalitarian lens by drawing from the students’ real-life worlds via their respective narratives, classroom observations, interviews and survey. Through the analyses of their stories and the other data instruments, my study examines in particular the relationship between what is expected of them academically and the life-worlds that preceded their entry to the university.

What makes for a just society constitutes one of the most intensely debated subject among political philosophers. There are many theorists striving to identify principles of justice and each believes his/hers theory to be the best. The literature on this subject is much too voluminous to be canvassed in its entirety here. I will, however, examine the stances and arguments of three key schools of thought shaping the modern discussion of social justice: libertarianism (particularly Robert Nozick and Milton and Rose Friedman), liberal egalitarianism (John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin), and socialism (Karl Marx and John Roemer). Each of these schools articulate sharply contrasting views. These differences create an intriguing debate about what the most just society would look like.

No description available.

I uppsatsen presenterar jag “luck egalitarianism” och specifikt Dworkins teori om jämlika resurser. Målet med Dworkins teori är att sammanväva de två till synes motstridiga principerna om lika hänsyn och lika respekt. Dworkin försöker föra samman principerna genom att nå en fördelning som är ambitions-känslig samtidigt som den är talang-okänslig. Han försöker uppnå detta ideal genom att kombinera en fri marknad som visar lika respekt för medborgarnas valfrihet och ansvar, med en försäkringsmarknad som visar lika hänsyn till medborgarna genom möjligheten att teckna försäkring mot oförutsägbara konsekvenser under lika möjlighet och lika risk. Elizabeth S. Anderson påstår att Dworkins teori misslyckas i att kombinera principerna om lika hänsyn och lika respekt på ett rimligt sätt och presenterar två övergripande invändningar: hårdhetsinvändningen och förnedringsinvändningen. Den första invändningen (hårdhetsinvändingen) påstår att teorins ramverk för att fastslå vilka av de utsatta som har rätt till kompensation inte visar lika hänsyn till alla som är utsatta. Den andra invändningen (förnedringsinvändingen) påstår att grunderna för kompensation är förnedrande och inte visar lika respekt för alla medborgare. Målet med uppsatsen är att analysera Dworkins teori och undersöka om den vederläggs av Andersons invändningar. Den slutsats jag skall försvara är att så inte är fallet. Forskningsfrågan är följande: Påvisar Andersons invändningar att Dworkins teori om jämlika resurser inte visar lika hänsyn och respekt för alla medborgare?

This study follows students from two Swedish elite upper secondary schools with different profiles when they participate in a parliamentarian role-play game. The game lacks a teacher authority and is not a graded activity, putting the students in a position where they must negotiate what constitutes winning and losing. The game is used as an ethnographic site to investigate what it means to be a ‘successful’ elite school student and how it is embodied. The aim is to explore concrete processes of habitus formation, extending the knowledge regarding elite socialization in the Swedish case. The findings suggest that the game puts notions of what it means to be a ‘successful’ student to its head, giving rise to conflicts between students from the two differently profiled schools. The conflicts articulate differences between schools within the elite school category with regard to student formation. Further, the game singles out a few students and make them feel entitled to become leaders. The study shows that the intersection of students’ school affiliation, gender and social class background is important in order to understand whether they feel entitled or not, as well to understand their more encompassing experiences in this elite school game.

This thesis assesses the relation between equality and justice by exploring and identifying the relation between equality and justice in Rawls's theory of justice, Sandel's communitarian account of Justice and Sen's capability approach. And these accounts of justice are evaluated from an egalitarian point of view. The main argument defended in the thesis is that justice requires equality. Accordingly, these three accounts of justice are evaluated by taking their understanding of equality into consideration. Egalitarian evaluation of these accounts of justice reveals that all three of them fall short in accordance with the relation between equality and justice in their understanding of justice. Keywords: Capabilities, distributive justice, egalitarianism, equality, fairness, inequality, justice, social justice, virtues

The present study attempted to explore the role cultural values play on the relations between personality variables and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Specifically, Schwartz' cultural values of hierarchy and egalitarianism and the personality predictors of conscientiousness and agreeableness were examined. It was hypothesized that hierarchy and egalitarianism would moderate the relationship between conscientiousness, agreeableness and OCB. Specific hypotheses concerning the direction of the influence on particular dimensions of OCB were tested. Data were collected from multiple organizations resulting in a sample of 62 pairs of employee-supervisor dyads from the U.S. and 64 pairs from China. Results indicated that agreeableness correlated significantly with OCB toward individuals and that hierarchy moderated the relationship between conscientiousness and OCB toward the organization. The other hypotheses were not supported. Limitations of the study and implications for future research were also discussed.

每一個平等理論所要處理的都是不公平。德沃金藉其具原創性的拍賣會與保險市場思想範例以構建平等一概念，其中最可貴者在於其理論擺脫以量定義平等的窠臼。而藉保健檢視德沃金理論後，我認為對人的平等考量與敏於志向、鈍於稟賦兩項原則是非常值得任何平等理論奉為圭臬者；但其理論中仍有未能全身而退、通過保健檢視的部分。至於可取德沃金理論而代之的平等理論，我目前推薦沈恩的能力取徑，因為它從一個動態的面向來考量平等，而這可能比德沃金的理論前提更貼近事實。 / Every egalitarian theory copes with unfairness. R. Dworkin uses his very original auction and insurance market to build the concept of equality without using any concept of being equal in quantity. By the inspection through health to Dworkin’s theory of equality, I found that there are two principles worth adopting in a theory of equality, which are the “equal concern among individuals” and “being ambition sensitive and endowment insensitive.” Others did not pass the inspection through health. As to another theory of equality instead of Dworkin’s, I presently recommend Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which concerns equality from a dynamic aspect of freedom, which might be corresponding more to the fact than the premises of Dworkin’s.

Despite most educated people now accepting Darwinian explanations for human physical evolution, many of these same people remain reluctant to accept similar accounts of human behavioural or cognitive evolution. Leftists in particular often assume that our evolutionary history now has little bearing on modern human social behaviour, and that cultural processes have taken over from the biological imperatives at work elsewhere in nature. The leftist view of human nature still largely reflects that of Karl Marx, who believed that our nature is moulded solely by prevailing social and cultural conditions, and that, moreover, our nature can be completely changed by totally changing society. Ethical philosopher Peter Singer challenges this leftist view, arguing that the left must replace its non-Darwinian view of an infinitely malleable human nature with the more accurate scientific account now made possible by modern Darwinian evolutionary science. Darwinism, Singer suggests, could then be used as a source of new ideas and new approaches that could revive and revitalise the egalitarian left. This thesis defends and develops Singer’s arguments for a Darwinian left. It shows that much modern leftist opposition to evolutionary theory is misguided, and that Darwinism does not necessarily have the egregious political implications so often assumed by the egalitarian left – even in such controversial areas as possible ‘biological’ differences between the sexes or between different human populations.