Global equality of resources and the problem of valuation

The principle that every individual on the planet has a claim to an equal share of Earth’s natural resources has an intuitive attraction. Yet the Principle of Natural Resource Equality is not without its problems. This article focuses on the problem of valuation. Unless and until its adherents are able to develop an adequate theoretical mechanism for determining the comparative value of two or more bundles of natural resources the principle lacks applicability and persuasive force. Three adequacy constraints on such a mechanism are presented and then applied to a theorisation of the Principle of Natural Resource Equality that I have already expounded elsewhere: Global Equality of Resources. In each case I try to argue that Global Equality of Resources could satisfy the adequacy constraint, provided that both this theory and the relevant constraint are properly understood

Trouble in Paradise - A disabled person's right to the satisfaction of a self-defined need:Some conceptual and practical problems

This paper questions the usefulness of the rights-based approach to ameliorating the social situation of disabled people in Britain and advances two criticisms. First, that rights and self-de? ned needs have been under-theorised by disability theorists to the extent that they have insuf? ciently appreciated the problems that these approaches pose. The paper suggests that rights to appropriate resources to satisfy self-de? ned needs will generate vast numbers of competing rights claims and that the resulting tendency of rights to con? ict has been under-appreciated. Secondly, that there has been little consideration of how these con? icts might be reconciled. The ? rst two sections of the paper look at the concepts of ascribed and self-de? ned needs, respectively, whilst the ? nal one looks at some of the problems of the rights approach and some of the dif? culties of making self-de? ned need the basis of rights claims

Egalitarian justice and expected value

According to all-luck egalitarianism, the differential distributive effects of both brute luck, which defines the outcome of risks which are not deliberately taken, and option luck, which defines the outcome of deliberate gambles, are unjust. Exactly how to correct the effects of option luck is, however, a complex issue. This article argues that (a) option luck should be neutralized not just by correcting luck among gamblers, but among the community as a whole, because it would be unfair for gamblers as a group to be disadvantaged relative to non-gamblers by bad option luck; (b) individuals should receive the warranted expected results of their gambles, except insofar as individuals blamelessly lacked the ability to ascertain which expectations were warranted; and (c) where societal resources are insufficient to deliver expected results to gamblers, gamblers should receive a lesser distributive share which is in proportion to the expected results. Where all-luck egalitarianism is understood in this way, it allows risk-takers to impose externalities on non-risk-takers, which seems counterintuitive. This may, however, be an advantage as it provides a luck egalitarian rationale for assisting ‘negligent victims’

Intergenerational justice of what: welfare, resources or capabilities?

An important aspect of intergenerational justice concerns the specification of a 'currency of advantage' that can be used to evaluate distributive outcomes across time. Environmental theorists have introduced several innovative currencies of justice in recent years, such as ecological space and critical natural capital. However they have often downplayed the application of established currencies (such as welfare, resources or capabilities) to issues of futurity. After exploring the merits of a number of rival currencies, it is argued that the currency of 'capabilities to function' provides a promising basis for a theory of justice that takes seriously the rights and duties of intergenerational justice

Taking reasonable pluralism seriously: an internal critique of political liberalism

The later Rawls attempts to offer a non-comprehensive, but nonetheless moral justification in political philosophy. Many critics of political liberalism doubt that this is successful, but Rawlsians often complain that such criticisms rely on the unwarranted assumption that one cannot offer a moral justification other than by taking a philosophically comprehensive route. In this article, I internally criticize the justification strategy employed by the later Rawls. I show that he cannot offer us good grounds for the rational hope that citizens will assign political values priority over non-political values in cases of conflict about political matters. I also suggest an alternative approach to justification in political philosophy (that is, a weak realist, Williams-inspired account) that better respects the later Rawls’s concern with non-comprehensiveness and pluralism than either his own view or more comprehensive approaches. Thus, if we take reasonable pluralism seriously, then we should adopt what Shklar aptly called ‘liberalism of fear’. </jats:p

Global citizenship as the completion of cosmopolitanism

A conception of global citizenship should not be viewed as separate from, or synonymous with, the cosmopolitan moral orientation, but as a primary component of it. Global citizenship is fundamentally concerned with individual moral requirements in the global frame. Such requirements, framed here as belonging to the category of individual cosmopolitanism, offer guidelines on right action in the context of global human community. They are complementary to the principles of moral cosmopolitanism – those to be used in assessing the justice of global institutions and practices – that have been emphasised by cosmopolitan political theorists. Considering principles of individual and moral cosmopolitanism together can help to provide greater clarity concerning individual duties in the absence of fully global institutions, as well as clarity on individual obligations of justice in relation to emerging and still-developing trans-state institutions

Liberal Neutrality and Charitable Purposes

Under UK charity law, organisations seeking charitable status must demonstrate, inter alia, that they will pursue a purpose the state deems ‘charitable’. Such purposes inevitably reflect conceptions of the good, thus it is argued here that the state, in granting charitable status, affirms the value of ideas about the good; it indicates that a set of conceptions of the good are worthy of special advantages that are not provided for the pursuit of other conceptions. The designation of charitable status appears to be at odds with liberal neutrality, which argues that the state should not pursue, promote or pass judgement on particular conceptions of the good. In short, there is a prima facie tension between the general liberal neutrality doctrine and charity law. Yet liberal neutralists have not addressed this policy area. This article surveys the grounds for reconciliation between some conceptions of liberal neutrality and the present charity law. ‘Neutrality of effect’ addresses some concerns but its implications for charity law are not in accord with the general practice and principles regarding charities. Barry's process of abstraction is argued to be untenable as a policy option for charities. The article concludes that in so far as one is neutralist, ‘neutrality of justification’ in the form of neutral goods provides the most plausible account of charity law. However, such an account entails alterations to the existing legislation that one may view as a failure to account for well-established, legitimate principles and traditions in charity law. </jats:p

Veterans walk to beat back pain: study rationale, design and protocol of a randomized trial of a pedometer-based Internet mediated intervention for patients with chronic low back pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic back pain is a significant problem worldwide and may be especially prevalent among patients receiving care in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Back pain affects adults at all ages and is associated with disability, lost workplace productivity, functional limitations and social isolation. Exercise is one of the most effective strategies for managing chronic back pain. Yet, there are few clinical programs that use low cost approaches to help patients with chronic back pain initiate and maintain an exercise program.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We describe the design and rationale of a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of a pedometer-based Internet mediated intervention for patients with chronic back pain. The intervention uses an enhanced pedometer, website and e-community to assist these patients with initiating and maintaining a regular walking program with the primary aim of reducing pain-related disability and functional interference. The study specific aims are: 1) To determine whether a pedometer-based Internet-mediated intervention reduces pain-related functional interference among patients with chronic back pain in the short term and over a 12-month timeframe. 2) To assess the effect of the intervention on walking (measured by step counts), quality of life, pain intensity, pain related fear and self-efficacy for exercise. 3) To identify factors associated with a sustained increase in walking over a 12-month timeframe among patients randomized to the intervention.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Exercise is an integral part of managing chronic back pain but to be effective requires that patients actively participate in the management process. This intervention is designed to increase activity levels, improve functional status and make exercise programs more accessible for a broad range of patients with chronic back pain.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p>NCT00694018</p