Averroes y las cosas justas por naturaleza

En su comentario a la Ética a Nicómaco, Averroes se ocupó del pasaje donde Aristóteles distingue entre las cosas que son justas por naturaleza y aquéllas que lo son en virtud de la ley (V, 7 1134b18-1135a5). Su comentario es particularmente breve, pero plantea algunas dificultades importantes, como su alusión a un derecho naturale legale, que, según Leo Strauss, vendría a ser simplemente un derecho positivo de aceptación general. En este artículo se busca caracterizar lo justo natural y lo justo positivo en el comentario de Averroes y mostrar el alcance de la variación de los criterios propios de la justicia positiva.

Beyond homo economicus: Recognition, self-realization and social work

This paper builds on Ferguson's important contribution to the debate on personalization in social work that appeared in the British Journal of Social Work in 2007. Whereas Ferguson approached the topic through the lens of political philosophy, the account below draws on critical social theory to examine not only the nature of personalization, but also its supportive pillar of individualization. In particular, Axel Honneth's critique of individualization in modern society is presented before setting out his ideas on the need for self-realization through inter-subjective recognition. The implications of Honneth's position are then considered in terms of four interrelated dimensions of social work practice, namely: (i) social work as symbolic interaction; (ii) social work as care; (iii) social work as respect; and (iv) social work as validation. It is argued that this constellation of practices poses a direct and necessary challenge to a social work of personalization.

Understanding Human Dignity

“Understanding Human Dignity” aims to help the reader make sense of current debates about the meaning and implications of the idea of “human dignity.” The concept of human dignity has probably never been so omni-present in everyday speech, or so deeply embedded in political and legal discourse. In debates on torture, abortion, same-sex marriage, and welfare reform, appeals to dignity are seldom hard to find. The concept of dignity is not only a prominent feature of political debate, but also, and increasingly, of legal argument. Indeed, courts tell us that human dignity is the foundation of all human rights. But the more important it is, the more contested it seems to have become. There has, as a result, been an extraordinary explosion of scholarly writing about the concept of human dignity in law, political philosophy, and theology. This book aims to reflect on these intra-disciplinary debates about dignity in law, philosophy, history, politics, and theology, through a series of edited essays from specialists in these fields, explored the contested concept in its full richness and complexity.

Partisanship and Public Reason

In the large body of literature concerning John Rawls’s Political Liberalism (1993) and his conception of public reason, little attention has been paid to the implications that the constraints of public reason have for partisans, i.e. citizens who participate in politics through political parties. This paper argues that even on the basis of a ‘mild’ understanding of Rawls’s conception of the constraints of public reason, which takes into account the various stipulations Rawls provided throughout his later work, when applied to partisans the constraints of public reason lose none or little of their hindering force. This seriously undermines the contribution that parties and partisans can provide to the change and the varieties of public reason that Rawls himself advocates as a response to social change and, therefore, to political justification and legitimacy. Parties articulate, coordinate and enhance societal demands which, without their support, may remain unheard and fail to change the acceptable terms of public reason and political justification. If the political speech of partisans is restrained, this potential for change (and, therefore, its contribution to political legitimacy) is seriously undermined.

Non-domination, non-alienation and social equality: towards a republican understanding of equality

The republican idea of non-domination stresses the importance of certain social relationships for a person’s freedom, showing that freedom is a social-relational state. While the idea of freedom as non-domination receives a lot of attention in the literature, republican theorists say surprisingly little about equality. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to carve out the contours of a republican conception of equality.. In so doing, I will argue that republican accounts of equality share a significant normative overlap with the idea of social equality. However, closer analysis of Philip Pettit’s account of ‘expressive egalitarianism’ (which Pettit sees as inherently connected to non-domination) and recent theories of social equality shows that republican non-domination – in contrast to what Pettit seems to claim – is not sufficient for securing (republican) social equality. In order to secure social equality for all, republicans would have to go beyond non-domination.

Social Equality: On what it means to be equals

The first collected volume on social and relational equality.
Addresses a gap in the literature - while many philosophers have pointed to the importance of social equality, it requires much more theoretical development, which this volume aims to provide.
Offers a unique answer to the debate about whether or not equality is valuable.
Features a foreword by eminent political theorist David Miller
Includes new contributions by some of the most well-known contemporary moral and political philosophers, such as Samuel Scheffler and Jonathan Wolff.
Is equality valuable? This question dominates many discussions of social justice, which tend to center on whether certain forms of distributive equality are valuable, such as the equal distribution of primary social goods. But these discussions often neglect what is known as social or relational equality. Social equality suggests that equality is foremost about relationships and interactions between people, rather than being primarily about distribution.

A number of philosophers have written about the significance of social equality, and it has also played an important role in real-life egalitarian movements, such as feminism and civil rights movements. However, as it has been relatively neglected in comparison to the debates about distributive equality, it requires much more theoretical attention. This volume brings together a collection of ten original essays which present new analyses of social and relational equality in philosophy and political theory. The essays analyze the nature of social equality, as well as its relationship to justice and politics.

Readership: The book is primarily aimed at professionals in the field - philosophers (especially in moral, social and political philosophy) and political theorists. It is also aimed at the academic library market. Moreover, the book should be of interest to advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students attending courses on theories of equality and/or social justice.

Freedom, republicanism, and workplace democracy

This article explores the republican case for worker voice in economic enterprises based on the ideal of freedom as non-domination, and assesses its merits relative to two influential arguments for workplace democratization grounded on freedom understood as autonomy and self-determination. Two claims are advanced. The first is that the republican case for worker voice avoids difficulties associated with these two arguments. The second, however, is that the ideal of non-domination is insufficient, that an adequate understanding and defence of workplace democracy will also have to make significant reference to freedom understood as autonomy.

Freedom as non-domination: radicalisation or retreat?

Key challenges for contemporary neorepublicans are identified and explored. Firstly, the attempt to maintain a sharp line between neorepublicanism and the wider family of liberal–egalitarian political theories is questioned. Secondly, in response to challenges from democratic theorists, it is argued that republicanism needs to effect an appropriate rapprochement with the ideal of collective political autonomy, on which it appears to rely. Thirdly, it is argued that freedom as non-domination draws so heavily on the idea of equal respect that it is hard to maintain that freedom is the sole value grounding the theory. Finally, it is suggested that the consequentialist framework of Pettit’s theory imposes significant limitations on republican social justice. How republican political theorists respond to these challenges will determine whether the neorepublican revival will be seen as enriching contemporary debates about democracy and social justice or as a retreat from more ambitious accounts of freedom and justice.

Climate Change, Neutrality and the Harm Principle

This paper aims at evaluating the compatibility of coercive climate policies with liberal neutrality. More precisely, it focuses on the doctrine of state neutrality as associated with the "harm principle". It argues that given the difficulty of attributing causal responsibilities for climate harms to individuals, the harm principle doesn't work in this case, at least if one endorses a liberal atomistic ontology. Furthermore, the definition of what constitutes climate harms implies making moral assumptions, which makes it impossible to justify climate policies in a neutral way. Finally, the paper shows another consequence of applying neutrality to the case of climate change, that is the risk of a shift from political forms of decision-making to technocracy. Focusing too much on liberty of choice may (paradoxically) be to the detriment of political freedom. The paper concludes that climate change is an intrinsically moral issue and that it should be the occasion of a political debate about our current values and lifestyles. It should not be reduced to a mere question of carbon metric.