The justice of god and the formation of society

This theological study is a contribution to the search for a conception of justice which will form a just society. Its aim is to discover whether two leading modem secular theories of justice might be mediations of the justice of God, which I take to be a principle in Creation and the basis for the formation of society. My interdisciplinary approach advocates and employs critical theory to expose the pathologies of modernity, particularly domination (or the arbitrary use of power) as a major cause of injustice, and thus an impediment to the formation of a just society. This approach is undergirded by an Incarnational and Trinitarian theology which, through the use of a socio-political hermeneutic, transcends the biblical categories from which it origtuates. It recognises that the justice of God, understood throughout this thesis as right relationship or true sociality, is mediated through human agency and action which accord with God's nature and will. The theories of John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas which I choose to examine understand justice in terms of normative legitimacy, achieved through a publicly discursive and justificatory procedure, leading to a rational consensus about the social norms which form and direct society. My study assesses how far each mediates God’s justice in forming society. It concludes that Habermas's theory has a stronger claim in this regard owing to its greater degree of consonance with the communicative nature of that justice, and to a recognition that the reality underlying Habermas's theory of justice as communicative action is God's justice, mediated in the linguistic structure of Habermas's procedure. In conclusion, I propose that the Church, in adopting this communicative understanding of justice, commit itself to the building and defence of a vibrant public sphere, in which justice is discursively determined; and in which all members of society, especially the disadvantaged for whom God is concerned, participate deliberatively in the formation of the society God justly wills

A green third way? : philosophical reflections on government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles

The book kicks off by remarking that the year 1972 must have been a very special year indeed. The Club of Rome published its report 'The Limits to Growth', the Ecologist published its 'Blueprint for Survival', and the United Nations held its first environmental conference in Stockholm. These three occasions were the first to use the notion of sustainable development with its current connotations. However, sustainable development only received its lasting status as a meta-objective for national and international environmental policy-making with the publication of the WCED-report 'Our Common Future' in 1987. This report defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Subsequently, the debate on sustainable development reached a new climax with the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This conference introduced the idea that sustainable development asks for adjustments of lifestyles and patterns of consumption, apart from adjustments in the sphere of production. UNCED emphasised the need for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles, and the second Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP2) translated this emphasis to the Dutch context.UNCED and NEPP2 initiated an extensive public debate on government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles, which was dominated by communicative and economic strategies. Unfortunately, these strategies hitherto failed to reconcile government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles and respect for people's freedom to follow their own lifestyles. Therefore, this book's objective is to provide this very reconciliation by drawing an outline of a green third way for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles. This green third way presents itself as an alternative for the first (communicative) and second (economic) ways in the Dutch public debate. The book aims to articulate people's concerns about the deterioration of nature and the environment, materialised in the worldwide support for the notion of sustainable development, within a largely political liberal frame of reference.Chapter 2 maps the Dutch public debate on government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles. This analysis shows that although communicative and economic strategies dominate the debate, these strategies are seriously flawed in their attempts to evade the principled question of whether government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles implies an intolerable infringement of people's freedom to follow their own lifestyles, visions of the good life or consumptive preferences. Communicative and economic strategies are thus criticised on three accounts: 1) their failure to recognise the inextricable interconnectedness between attitudes and behaviour in people's lifestyles; 2) their evasion of the question of how government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles could respect the individual freedom of choice; and 3) their unwillingness to investigate whether sustainable development could offer sound reasons to restrict this freedom of choice. Both strategies are, therefore, incapable of providing a meaningful interpretation of all key terms in the phrase 'government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles'. It is not much of a surprise then that they cannot reconcile government intervention and respect for people's freedom to follow their own lifestyles. Therefore, the chapters 3,4 and 5 subsequently set out to remedy these three flaws of communicative and economic strategies. Luckily, lately a third strategy dawned in the Dutch public debate. This third strategy provides some of the materials to develop an outline of a green third way for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles.Chapter 3 argues, mainly inspired by Giddens's theory of structuration, his and Beck's accounts of reflexive modernisation and Douglas's grid-group analysis, for a narrative conceptualisation of the notions of lifestyle and self-identity. This conceptualisation 1) emphasises the inextricable interconnectedness of practices and narratives of self-identity in people's lifestyles, 2) stresses the duality of individual and society in the constitution of lifestyles, 3) changes the modernist distinction between citizen and consumer for the public-private hybrid of the citizen-consumer, and 4) maps the plurality of lifestyles in contemporary globalising, individualising and detraditionalising societies. The narrative conceptualisation of lifestyles implies that it is no longer possible to evade the question of whether government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles necessarily entails an intolerable infringement of people's freedom to follow their own lifestyles. It will not do to emphasise some remaining freedom in either practices or narratives of self-identity, since these practices and narratives are inextricably interconnected in people's lifestyles.Chapter 4 argues, mainly informed by Berlin's and Rawls's political liberalism, Raz's liberal perfectionism and Habermas's notion of a deliberative democracy, that most government intervention in lifestyles is indeed an intolerable infringement of the individual freedom of choice. This liberal point of view 1) argues that respect for the individual freedom of choice implies that the government should take a neutral and anti-perfectionist stance, 2) holds it that directive, communicative and economic, strategies for government intervention would only be justified if certain choices harmed others, caused injustice, or were obviously irrational, 3) accepts, in the second instance, that the political liberal argument is not neutral and anti-perfectionist at all, but believes that this perfectionist turn only strengthens the need to respect the individual freedom of choice, and 4) advocates extensive public deliberation on the objectives and instruments of environmental policy-making. The political liberal emphasis on the need to respect the individual freedom of choice implies that directive strategies for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles generally do not show enough respect for people's freedom to follow their own lifestyles, unless it is obvious that certain lifestyles harm others or cause injustice.Chapter 5 argues, mainly on the basis of Rawls's savings principle, Wissenburg's restraint principle, Passmore's chains of love, and De-Shalit's transgenerational communities, for a double interpretation of sustainable development as a principle of intergenerational justice and a future-oriented green ideal. This double interpretation 1) embraces the restraint principle and the argument that no individual can claim an unconditional right to destroy environmental goods as a baseline that could justify directive strategies for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles, 2) suggests that people's concerns about the deterioration of nature and the environment articulate future-oriented narratives of self-identity that could fuel non-directive strategies to develop further responsibilities towards nearby future generations, 3) prefers to draw a list of primary environmental goods instead of quantifying some environmental utilisation space as a practical guideline for day-to-day environmental policy-making, and 4) concludes that the uncertainty of scientific knowledge about the unintended environmental repercussions of consumptive choices casts serious doubt about attempts to justify directive strategies for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles beyond the requirement of sustaining the baseline of the restraint principle and the list of primary environmental goods. Sustainable development, thus, provides sound arguments to restrict people's freedom to follow their own lifestyles, when these lifestyles transgressed the baseline of the restraint principle and the list of primary environmental goods. However, the individual freedom of choice should not be restricted for any further environmental considerations. Non-directive strategies are thus to stimulate the development of such further responsibilities towards nearby future generations. The challenge for a green third way of government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles becomes to search for adjustments of social and material conditions that could tempt people to develop sustainable lifestyles.Chapter 6, finally, returns from these rather unearthly reflections to the more mundane issues in the public debate on government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles by presenting an outline of a green third way. This green third way offers an alternative to the overly directive communicative and economic strategies for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles, and broadens the prevailing political landscape with a strategy that promises superiority in addressing the intricacies of environmental policy-making in liberal-democratic societies. Although this green third way leaves ample room to use communicative and economic instruments to secure the environmental baseline of the restraint principle and the list of primary environmental goods, these instruments are framed in a quite different perspective or set of premises now. A short discussion of the Schönau Energy Initiatives serves to illustrate the kernel of an alternative strategy. This green third way offers a non-directive strategy for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles in which the government hopes to stimulate the development of sustainable lifestyles by adjusting the social and material conditions that surround people in following their lifestyles. The green third way, thus, reconciles government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles and respect for people's freedom to follow their own lifestyles to a satisfactory degree. It accepts that the requirement to secure the environmental baseline of the restraint principle and the list of primary environmental goods justifies the use of directive strategies for government intervention in non-sustainable lifestyles in a limited set of conditions. However, it also emphasises that non-directive strategies should do the majority of the job. In this non-directive strategy the government should provide the social and material conditions in which a plurality of sustainable lifestyles could flourish.</p

Space as mirror: analyzing the spatial justice of the planning practice of shared ownership housing in Shanghai, China

Justice is a basic and classic theme. Compared with its meaningful connotations in sociology, economics, and legal disciplines, the spatial dimension of justice lacks sufficient attention and exploration. Can we define space as (un)just? Although scholars have endeavored to build up the conception of spatial justice, there remains a theoretical gap between justice philosophy and spatial planning: the transformation from philosophical justice to spatial justice. As spatial planning involves planning practices that (re)produce space, the gap raises the question of how to transfer complicated philosophical theories of justice to spatial planning and the question of how to analyze the spatial justice of certain planning practices. Existing research puts emphasis on the spatial equity of the distribution of social goods, lacking the theory of justice in planning practices. This study focuses on one more specific question: for planning practice aiming at compensating for historical injustices, does it actually promote spatial justice? Taking the planning practice of shared-ownership housing in Shanghai as a case study, this thesis tries to provide an analytic framework for assessing the spatial justice of certain planning practices

Welfare and Generational Justice

Ideas: Generational Justice: an Overview; Generational Justice as Sustainability; Generational Justice and Social Justice; Foundations of Generational Justice Institutions: Constitutional protection; Ad Hoc Agency and Institutions. Welfare: Welfare and Generational Justice; Italian case study; Generational Justice perceptions and the role of Welfare regimes in a comparative survey; Welfare Challenges.Ideas: Generational Justice: an Overview; Generational Justice as Sustainability; Generational Justice and Social Justice; Foundations of Generational Justice Institutions: Constitutional protection; Ad Hoc Agency and Institutions. Welfare: Welfare and Generational Justice; Italian case study; Generational Justice perceptions and the role of Welfare regimes in a comparative survey; Welfare Challenges.LUISS PhD Thesi

Reasonable agreement: A contractualist political theory.

The thesis is a defence of contractualism in liberal political theory. My aim is to show that contractualism can play a crucial role in the political theory of liberalism if it applies to the meta-ethical level rather than the ethical level. In particular, I will argue that the contractualist concept of 'reasonable agreement' provides the foundation for a new comprehensive liberal political theory. The basic intuition behind the idea of reasonable agreement is that all principles and rules must be capable of being justified to everyone: these are principles and rules on which everyone could reach agreement, where the agreement is defined in terms of what no one could reasonably reject. The first introductory chapter will attempt to establish that contractualism reflects the ethical core of liberalism, and that the contractualist theory of reasonable agreement gives the best account of egalitarianism. This will be followed by six chapters, divided in two parts, and a brief conclusion. Part I presents the case for contractualism from a theoretical angle, providing a conceptual analysis of reasonable agreement. Part II examines reasonable agreement from a political angle, providing an analysis of three key questions in political liberalism. The three chapters making up Part I deal with the theories of Rawls and Scanlon, the two major figures responsible for reviving the interest in contractualism in general, and 'reasonable agreement' in particular. Chapter 2 critically evaluates Rawls's contractualism, while Chapter 3 focuses on the moral theory of Scanlon. Chapter 4 attempts to build on the efforts of Rawls and Scanlon by further exploring and hopefully improving on their theory of reasonable agreement. I believe that the strength of reasonable agreement lies in its effort to raise contractualism from the ethical to the meta-ethical level, thus the three chapters in Part I evaluate two notions central to reasonable agreement: the idea of agreement and the concept of reasonableness. This brings us to the second part of the thesis, where the relationship between 'reasonable agreement' and political liberalism is investigated. Political liberalism is concerned with the political concepts that form the basis of a liberal society, namely, political obligation, social justice, and neutrality. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 examine how the egalitarian proposal of reasonable agreement applies respectively to these three liberal questions. The concluding chapter will provide a summary of the main arguments presented in the thesis

Understanding and applying the concept of sustainable development to transportation planning and decision-making in the U.S.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, Technology, Management, and Policy Program, 2006.Includes bibliographical references.This research demonstrates that sustainable development is a multidimensional concept that should be approached in a transdisciplinary manner. Its objective has been to synthesize and integrate disparate and currently unconnected lines of thought that have not yet been applied in a systematic way to promote sustainable development and sustainable transportation. The primary contribution of this research is the theoretical development of a decision-support framework that identifies the tools and approaches that decision-makers could/should use to create policies and programs that transition society towards sustainability. These tools and approaches are either articulated or developed by the author throughout the dissertation. Specific ideas explored include a Rawlsian/utilitarian decision-making philosophy; a hybrid trade-off/positional analysis framework that is presented as an alternative to benefit-cost analysis; ecological vs. environmental economics; participatory backcasting; and ways to stimulate disrupting and/or radical technological innovation. To identify gaps that exist between theory and practice, the approach embodied in the proposed sustainable transportation decision-support framework is compared with current metropolitan transportation planning and decision-making processes in the U.S. The framework is then used to consider how the U.S. federal government might move the nation's transportation system towards sustainability.by Ralph P. Hall.Ph.D

Distal Horizons: An investigation of the justifiable downstream limits to the positive protection of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources within drug discovery

International initiatives, such as the Nagoya Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (the Protocol), have created (or are creating) “access and benefit sharing” rights which seek to ensure that genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with such genetic resources (“TKAGR”) cannot be used without the consent of rights holders. These initiatives (including the Protocol) are unclear on how far non-consensual “use” extends to man-made downstream derivatives of the products of genetic expression. It also gives no guidance as to the degree to which control over TKAGR should extend throughout the drug discovery process. This work demonstrates how such TKAGR entering into a drug discovery process will be diluted with other information, used as an inspiration for further research, or for the development of research tools which may, in turn, lead to further discoveries and highlights how useful drugs may be very distal from the original inspiration provided by the TKAGR. This work also examines the causal link between an original piece of TKAGR and remote “downstream” uses of that information within drug discovery. It identifies “serendipitous” discoveries of unexpected second uses as a potential point at which the causation in law link to distal use may potentially be broken. This thesis examines the high level normative justifications for these rights, and in particular uses consequentialist/utilitarian, contribution/desert claims and distributive justice (Rawlsian maximin) claims to test their justifiable scope

Texas Law Review

Journal containing articles, notes, book reviews, and other analyses of law and legal cases. Topics in this issue cover Congressional overrides of Supreme Court statutory interpretation decisions, 1967-2011, minimum wage laws and social equality, the casual relevance of intent, and the SEC and corporate liability