81 research outputs found

    Pacifism, Politics, and Feminism

    Get PDF
    This anthology explores the many and varied connections between pacifism, politics, and feminism. Each topic is often thought about in academic isolation; however, when we consider how they intersect and interact, it opens up new areas for discussion and analysis.; Readership: All interested in social and political philosophy, ethnic and gender studies, and peace studies, and anyone concerned to understand their interrelations in order to create a more just, peaceful world

    Pacifism, Politics, and Feminism

    Get PDF
    This anthology explores the many and varied connections between pacifism, politics, and feminism. Each topic is often thought about in academic isolation; however, when we consider how they intersect and interact, it opens up new areas for discussion and analysis.; Readership: All interested in social and political philosophy, ethnic and gender studies, and peace studies, and anyone concerned to understand their interrelations in order to create a more just, peaceful world

    Everyone's got something they just can't give up: a challenge to Feinberg's adherence to the Volenti maxim

    Get PDF
    In this paper, I challenge Joel Feinberg's in-principle unconditional adherence to the Volenti maxim, which states, roughly, that to he who consents, no wrong is done. Given the resources available in his theory of when a community can legitimately use the criminal law to prohibit actions, it seems that Feinberg need not hold that a person's consent always nullifies the wrong done to her. Through the lens of a particularly troubling case, I attempt to demonstrate that Feinberg can and should accept, given his prioritization of the doctrine of sovereign self-rule, that there are limits to consent's ability to nullify wrongdoing. I conclude by showing that accepting limitations on the Volenti maxim is not only consistent with Feinberg's theory, but actually enables his theory to consider a range of problematic cases in a fresh light

    The State Right of Self-Defense: A Claim in Need of Justification

    Get PDF
    My dissertation focuses on the nature and conditions of the state right of self-defense. The claim that states have rights of self-defense that sometimes justify going to war is supported by appeal to the so-called domestic analogy, which likens states to individuals. Just as individuals have rights of self-defense that sometimes justify the use of lethal force, so too do states have rights of self-defense that sometimes justify going to war. But while the domestic analogy is both intuitively persuasive and a pervasive idea in the study of international relations, it does not succeed in justifying the claim that states have rights of self-defense. Whatever reasons we have for accepting that individuals have rights of self-defense, such reasons do not provide grounds for concluding that states have rights of self-defense as well. I consider Locke's natural law theory of individual rights and the associated theory of state rights, Mill's instrumentalist theory of individual rights and the associated theory of state rights, and Rawls' theory of individual rights and the associated theory of state rights, and conclude that these different ways of cashing out the domestic analogy all fail to justify the claim that states have rights of self-defense. However, this does not mean that we must conclude that states do not have rights of self- defense. States do have rights of self-defense when they fulfill one of their primary roles, namely, when they are organized so as to provide the protection that their populations deserve. Such protection involves the state recognizing and respecting the dignity of its individuals, considered as rational autonomous agents, via its deliberative processes, laws, institutions, and policies. When states fail to recognize and respect the dignity of the members of their populations in these ways, they do not have rights of self-defense. Thus, inter-state interventions against such states are not straightforwardly ruled out as rights violations, but instead may be justified in certain circumstances.Doctor of Philosoph

    Proud Vermin: Modern Militias and the State

    Get PDF
    Contemporary arguments about private paramilitary organizations often focus on the threat of physical violence that they pose to the state: if such organizations garner enough physical power, then they can overtake the state via violent coup. Inspired by the legalist scholar Han Feizi’s position, we contend that such organizations also represent a sociopolitical, existential threat to the state. Specifically, their tendency for ideological expansion and subsequent gathering of political influence undermines state institutions, even without the use of overt physical force. Consequently, the sociopolitical enterprise of having a unified, stable state is incompatible with the existence of, and public political support for, private paramilitary organizations, regardless of their actual or potential physical power. This argument succeeds regardless of the moral status of such paramilitary groups. Such groups, when they match the essential components of the description Han Feizi provides, are practically and politically antithetical to the integrity of the stat
    • …
    corecore