Podcasts about fabienne peter

A conversation with Fabienne Peter about her recent book, "The Grounds of Political Legitimacy" (Oxford UP).

Fabienne Peter is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Warwick and currently the Head of Department. She specializes in moral and political philosophy and in epistemology. The justification of political decisions has been a longstanding focus of her research and she has published extensively on political and democratic legitimacy. She is currently primarily working on topics in social, moral and political epistemology and in meta-ethics, especially on questions relating to the justification of actions and beliefs. This podcast is an audio recording of Professor Peter's talk - 'Normative Facts and Reasons' - at the Aristotelian Society on 29 October 2018. The recording was produced by the Backdoor Broadcasting Company.

Der Blickpunkt Trans mit Henry Hohmann vom Transgender Network Switerzland TGNS und folgenden Themen: - International: Luxemburg und Chile haben neue Trans-Gesetze beschlossen; in New York kann die Geburtsurkunde auf ein nicht-binäres Geschlecht geändert werden. - Schweiz: Die SBB ändern ihre Online-Formulare; nicht-binäre trans Menschen im Fokus der Medien; die Stadt Zürich beschliesst einen Aktionsplan für trans Menschen; neue Jugendstudie erfasst erstmals auch trans Menschen. - TGNS: Veranstaltungshinweise (Trans an der Uni Zürich, Studie Trans*Swiss, Trans in Film und Medien). - Glanz und Gloria: Lucy Clark ist die erste Fussball-Schiedsrichterin in England; Fabienne Peter ist die erste trans Frau, die in der Schweizer Eishockeyliga offiziell spielt; trans Models only an der New York Fashion Week.

Der Blickpunkt Trans mit Henry Hohmann vom Transgender Network Switerzland TGNS und folgenden Themen: - International: Luxemburg und Chile haben neue Trans-Gesetze beschlossen; in New York kann die Geburtsurkunde auf ein nicht-binäres Geschlecht geändert werden. - Schweiz: Die SBB ändern ihre Online-Formulare; nicht-binäre trans Menschen im Fokus der Medien; die Stadt Zürich beschliesst einen Aktionsplan für trans Menschen; neue Jugendstudie erfasst erstmals auch trans Menschen. - TGNS: Veranstaltungshinweise (Trans an der Uni Zürich, Studie Trans*Swiss, Trans in Film und Medien). - Glanz und Gloria: Lucy Clark ist die erste Fussball-Schiedsrichterin in England; Fabienne Peter ist die erste trans Frau, die in der Schweizer Eishockeyliga offiziell spielt; trans Models only an der New York Fashion Week.

Das Recht auf politische Partizipation ist in verschiedenen völkerechtlichen Konventionen als Menschenrecht verankert. Doch lässt sich ein solches Menschenrecht philosophisch tatsächlich begründen? Und worauf gibt es uns einen Anspruch? Ein Gespräch mit Fabienne Peter, Professorin an der Universität Warwick.

Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. The quip reveals an interesting dimension of democracy: it’s hard to beat, but it’s also hard to love. Democracy is hard to love because it sometimes requires us to acquiesce and live by decisions, rules, and laws that we oppose. In fact, democracy sometimes requires us to accept political outcomes that we take to be demonstrably sub-optimal, mistaken, and even unjust. In short, when democracy decides, even those in the minority are required to comply. And those who refuse or fail to comply can be forced into compliance. This is what we mean when we talk about the legitimacy of democratic governance: democratically-produced collective decisions place a moral claim even on those who disagree, and the democratic state may enforce compliance with such results. But democratic legitimacy is philosophically puzzling. It seems that the fact that a given outcome gained the support of a majority provides a very weak reason for compliance among those in the minority. Contemporary democratic theorists have thus turned to the idea of public deliberation as a necessary element of democratic legitimacy. Deliberative democrats hold that voting must be preceded by open processes of public deliberation. This reason-recognizing element is supposed to explain both the bindingness of democratic outcomes and the permissibility of the use of force to gain compliance. In Democratic Legitimacy (Routledge, 2011), Fabienne Peter explores the philosophical problems associated with democracy and deploys a series of compelling criticisms of standard accounts of legitimacy. She then develops an original and fascinating version of deliberative democracy, once which combines epistemic and procedural considerations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. The quip reveals an interesting dimension of democracy: it’s hard to beat, but it’s also hard to love. Democracy is hard to love because it sometimes requires us to acquiesce and live by decisions, rules, and laws that we oppose. In fact, democracy sometimes requires us to accept political outcomes that we take to be demonstrably sub-optimal, mistaken, and even unjust. In short, when democracy decides, even those in the minority are required to comply. And those who refuse or fail to comply can be forced into compliance. This is what we mean when we talk about the legitimacy of democratic governance: democratically-produced collective decisions place a moral claim even on those who disagree, and the democratic state may enforce compliance with such results. But democratic legitimacy is philosophically puzzling. It seems that the fact that a given outcome gained the support of a majority provides a very weak reason for compliance among those in the minority. Contemporary democratic theorists have thus turned to the idea of public deliberation as a necessary element of democratic legitimacy. Deliberative democrats hold that voting must be preceded by open processes of public deliberation. This reason-recognizing element is supposed to explain both the bindingness of democratic outcomes and the permissibility of the use of force to gain compliance. In Democratic Legitimacy (Routledge, 2011), Fabienne Peter explores the philosophical problems associated with democracy and deploys a series of compelling criticisms of standard accounts of legitimacy. She then develops an original and fascinating version of deliberative democracy, once which combines epistemic and procedural considerations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. The quip reveals an interesting dimension of democracy: it’s hard to beat, but it’s also hard to love. Democracy is hard to love because it sometimes requires us to acquiesce and live by decisions, rules, and laws that we oppose. In fact, democracy sometimes requires us to accept political outcomes that we take to be demonstrably sub-optimal, mistaken, and even unjust. In short, when democracy decides, even those in the minority are required to comply. And those who refuse or fail to comply can be forced into compliance. This is what we mean when we talk about the legitimacy of democratic governance: democratically-produced collective decisions place a moral claim even on those who disagree, and the democratic state may enforce compliance with such results. But democratic legitimacy is philosophically puzzling. It seems that the fact that a given outcome gained the support of a majority provides a very weak reason for compliance among those in the minority. Contemporary democratic theorists have thus turned to the idea of public deliberation as a necessary element of democratic legitimacy. Deliberative democrats hold that voting must be preceded by open processes of public deliberation. This reason-recognizing element is supposed to explain both the bindingness of democratic outcomes and the permissibility of the use of force to gain compliance. In Democratic Legitimacy (Routledge, 2011), Fabienne Peter explores the philosophical problems associated with democracy and deploys a series of compelling criticisms of standard accounts of legitimacy. She then develops an original and fascinating version of deliberative democracy, once which combines epistemic and procedural considerations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices