Rawls and Walzer on Non-Domestic Justice

被引:1
作者
Caroline Walsh
机构
[1] University College,
[2] Dublin,undefined
关键词
Walzer; Rawls; cosmopolitanism; justice;
D O I
10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300303
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This article illuminates the relationship between John Rawls' and Michael Walzer's accounts of non-domestic justice by tracing its connection to their domestic relationship. More precisely, it (a) places the celebrated positional shifts that characterize the latter (i.e., as is generally accepted, Rawls took a hermeneutic ‘turn’, and Walzer a universalist one) within the context of the fundamental justificatory tension between their projects which endures: reason vs trust; and then (b) juxtaposes this justificatory tension and their non-domestic political prescriptions. Such contextualization is important to the clarification of the pair's non-domestic relationship since it enables the observation that despite this enduring justificatory tension these political prescriptions are remarkably similar.
引用
收藏
页码:419 / 436
页数:17
相关论文
共 18 条
[11]  
Orend B(2000)Bounded and Cosmopolitan Justice Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29 411-425
[12]  
Pogge T(1994)Considering globalism, proposing pluralism: Michael Walzer on international justice Philosophy and Public Affairs 23 195-224
[13]  
Pogge T(2001)An egalitarian law of peoples The Philosophical Quarterly 51 246-253
[14]  
Rawls J(1985)Critical study: Rawls on international justice Philosophy and Public Affairs 14 223-251
[15]  
Walzer M(1980)Justice as fairness: political not metaphysical Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 209-229
[16]  
Walzer M(1981)The moral standing of states: a response to four critics Political Theory 9 379-399
[17]  
Walzer M(1999)Philosophy and democracy Ethical Perspectives 6 220-242
[18]  
Young IM(1995)Seminar with Michael Walzer The Journal of Political Philosophy 3 181-190