American political philosopher
POPULARITY
15 episodes with John Rawls
13 episodes with John Rawls
10 episodes with John Rawls
5 episodes with John Rawls
3 episodes with John Rawls
3 episodes with John Rawls
5 episodes with John Rawls
4 episodes with John Rawls
9 episodes with John Rawls
4 episodes with John Rawls
5 episodes with John Rawls
3 episodes with John Rawls
4 episodes with John Rawls
2 episodes with John Rawls
6 episodes with John Rawls
3 episodes with John Rawls
4 episodes with John Rawls
2 episodes with John Rawls
4 episodes with John Rawls
4 episodes with John Rawls
2 episodes with John Rawls
5 episodes with John Rawls
3 episodes with John Rawls
2 episodes with John Rawls
5 episodes with John Rawls
6 episodes with John Rawls
3 episodes with John Rawls
Selective admissions have long defined access to elite universities but a number of scholars are challenging this model, arguing that it reinforces privilege and entrenches inequality. In this episode, Dhruva and Utkarsh examine the case for replacing selective admissions with a lottery among qualified applicants. The discussion draws on John Rawls's concept of the veil of ignorance, and Michael Sandel's critique of meritocracy, which highlights how systems of selection often obscure privilege and foster a corrosive hubris among so-called “winners,” who come to believe their success is entirely self-made.Advocates of the lottery system argue that it could democratize access, reduce stress and competition, and promote a more just distribution of opportunity. Critics counter that such a shift risks undermining academic standards, devaluing individual achievement, and replacing one set of biases with another.This conversation goes beyond admissions policy and raises deeper questions about fairness, equity, and justice.
durée : 00:58:34 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli - En quoi Friedrich Hayek et John Rawls, deux philosophes politiques majeurs du XXe siècle, s'opposent-ils sur la question de la justice sociale ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Thierry Aimar Enseignant-chercheur en sciences économiques à l'Université de Lorraine et à Sciences Po Paris ; Valérie Charolles Économiste et philosophe, chercheuse associée au Laboratoire d' Anthropologie Critique Interdisciplinaire (EHESS/CNRS); Patrick Savidan Professeur au département de droit public et de science politique à l'Université Paris-Panthéon-Assas
Elon Musk's $56 billion compensation package from Tesla sparked intense debate and legal scrutiny. Approved in 2018, the performance-based package hinged on Tesla reaching ambitious market and operational milestones. As Tesla's stock price soared beyond expectations, the package's value ballooned to $101.4 billion by 2024. Notably, Musk would have earned nothing had Tesla not achieved these metrics at the time, few could imagine the company's stock crossing $400. Was Musk simply rewarded for creating shareholder value, or does this case highlight deeper concerns about executive compensation?While Musk's package is an extreme example, the broader debate persists. In 2023, CEOs of S&P 500 companies earned an average of $17.7 million, 268 times more than their median employees.In this episode, we explore the ethical and practical implications of capping CEO pay relative to lower-wage workers. Would salary caps promote equity or hinder performance incentives? We turn to the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls to examine concepts of justice, fairness, and equity in compensation structures. We also look at historical efforts to tackle income inequality and debate how organizations can balance rewarding leadership with ensuring fair treatment across all levels.
Angst, Aufregung, Ärger - kurz vor der Wahl kochen politische Debatten hoch. Deswegen habe ich ein paar Impulse aus der Philosophie dabei, die es dir ermöglichen sollen, dich gut zu reflektieren und zu positionieren. Folgende kunterbunte Zitate habe ich aus der Philosophiegeschichte ausgewählt: - Das "Ich weiß, dass ich nicht weiß" von Platons Sokrates kann uns dabei helfen, unsere eigenen Grenzen einzusehen - vielleicht hilft das der gemeinsamen Suche nach Weisheit, sorgt für weniger Rechthaberei und fördert sachliche Argumentation. - Die Naturgesetze, die Thomas Hobbes in seinem Leviathan entdeckt: "Suche Frieden und halte ihn ein" und "Was ihr wollt, dass euch andere tun sollen, das tut ihnen" können uns daran erinnern, dass wir für ihre Umsetzung unsere eigenen Leidenschaften hinterfragen und das Gemeinwohl priorisieren sollten. Außerdem erinnert das Bild des Leviathan daran, dass staatliche Gewalt eine Superkraft ist, weswegen wir gründlich überlegen sollten, welchen Personen wir zutrauen können, sie zu repräsentieren - weil sie die Naturgesetze mit auf die Agenda nehmen! - Das Gedankenexperiment von Markus Gabriel "Die Nazi-Maschine" ist eine aktuelle Version der Gerechtigkeitskonzeption, zu der wir alle in der Lage sind und die John Rawls mit seinem "Schleier des Nicht-Wissens" demonstrierte. Wenn wir einen inneren moralischen Kompass haben, der uns einen gerechten Zustand denken lässt, wissen wir auch, was es dazu braucht: Die abstrakte Gleichheit von Menschen als Menschen. - Und zuletzt das Vorwort von Ernst Bloch zu seinem dreibändigen Werk "Das Prinzip Hoffnung", das behauptet, Hoffnung ließe sich lernen und dies sei nötig, weil es uns weit macht und aktiv werden lässt. Also um politisch eine Gesellschaftsordnung zu ermöglichen, in der jeder eine gute Stellung haben kann, sollten wir zweierlei mit zur Wahlurne bringen: unsere wache Vernunft und ein hoffendes Herz nehmen!
For the latest Anchoring Truths Podcast, JWI Affiliated Scholar Paul DeHart joins for a fascinating in-depth discussion on themes from his latest book, The Social Contract in the Ruins: Natural Law and Government by Consent. DeHart is a distinguished professor of political science at Texas State University. Topics include the limits of the consent of the governed, philosophic errors of modern liberals such as John Rawls, what the American Founders correctly identified about the origins of rights, and the problems with Justice Holmes's legal positivism.
La semaine prochaine, l'ouvrage Zoopolis, co-écrit par Sue Donaldson et Will Kymlicka, sera (enfin) réédité aux éditions Hermann ! Ce livre est un classique de la pensée antispéciste, un tournant majeur dans la recherche et, je pense, dans le mouvement pour les droits des animaux. Il ne se contente pas de dénoncer l'exploitation animale : il ouvre un véritable programme politique et théorique pour construire une société plus juste et inclusive avec les autres animaux. Parce qu'abolir l'exploitation ne suffira pas. C'est une condition minimale, mais ensuite, une foule de questions se posent : comment réparer les torts causés ? Comment vivre ensemble dans une société interespèces ? Comment partager l'espace, distribuer équitablement les ressources, résoudre les conflits d'intérêts qui émergeront inévitablement ? Pour explorer ces enjeux passionnants, je reçois Frédéric Côté-Boudreau, enseignant en philosophie au Québec, chercheur postdoctoral, et auteur d'une thèse sur « L'autonomie inclusive : une théorie de la liberté pour toutes et tous », dirigée par Will Kymlicka (co-auteur de Zoopolis). C'est un entretien que je rêvais d'enregistrer depuis… avant même de lancer ce podcast ! Autant dire que je suis ravi de vous le partager aujourd'hui. J'espère que vous l'écouterez avec attention et que vous n'hésiterez pas à le diffuser largement : ces idées méritent vraiment d'être connues. ________________________________ Deux épisodes à ré-écouter en lien avec les questions soulevées dans celui-ci : - "Spécisme : appelons un chat un chat !" avec Valéry Giroux - "Qui compte moralement ?" avec Nicolas Delon ________________________________ Références et sources citées dans l'entretien : - Zoopolis. Une théorie politique des droits des animaux - Sue Donarldson & Will Kymlicka - "Spécisme. Abolir ne suffira pas" - Axelle Playoust-Braure - Tournant politique en éthique animale (et plus largement dans les études animales) - La libération animale - Peter Singer - Les théories multiculturalistes de la citoyenneté (Kymlicka a participé à développer) - Les théories de la justice - Will Kymlicka - Théorie de la justice - John Rawls (et ses 3 conditions pour être citoyens : avoir une conception de la vie bonne, intégrer les règles sociales / coopérer et participer à l'établissement des règles de la communauté) - Conséquentialisme (Peter Singer) / Déontologisme (Tom Regan, Gary Francione…) - Droits négatifs universel (ne pas…) / droits positifs relationnels (qui découlent de la co-construction d'une société commune) - Position extinctionniste de Gary Francione, à laquelle s'oppose la perspective zoopolitique - Éthiques du care - Mouvement de réduction de la souffrance des animaux sauvages (RWAS) ; à ce sujet voir cette conférence d'Axelle Playoust-Braure - Le champs des études critiques sur le handicap - When animals speak: Toward an Interspecies Democracy - Eva Meijer - Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance - Jason Hribal ________________________________ SOUTENIR : https://linktr.ee/poissonpodcast Comme un poisson dans l'eau est un podcast indépendant et sans publicité : votre soutien est indispensable pour qu'il puisse continuer à exister. Merci d'avance ! Les comptes Instagram, Bluesky, Mastodon et Facebook du podcast sont également à retrouver dans le link tree ! ________________________________ CRÉDITS Comme un poisson dans l'eau est un podcast indépendant créé et animé par Victor Duran-Le Peuch. Charte graphique : Ivan Ocaña Générique : Synthwave Vibe par Meydän Musique : Firefly par Jim Yosef
Picture this: Dad drops the kids off at school in the morning. Mom picks them up in the evening. On paper, it looks balanced. But is it really fair? To answer this, let's borrow a thought experiment from philosopher John Rawls: the “veil of ignorance”. Imagine you're tasked with designing the rules for how work, family, and caregiving responsibilities are distributed. But there's a twist—you don't know who you'll be in this system. Behind the veil, you have no idea if you'll be Mom or Dad, employer or employee. You don't know your gender, your role at work, or your personal circumstances. Stripped of all bias, your goal is to create a system that's fair for everyone—no matter where they end up. Now let's revisit Mom and Dad's arrangement through this lens. Listen for all the juicy details! hashtag#Philosophy hashtag#Thoughts hashtag#PhilosophyBFF hashtag#FrenchPhilosopher hashtag#Rawls hashtag#Ethics
In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory
In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies
In The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Routledge, 2024), McManus presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills. Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them. McManus argues for liberal socialism as a political theory which could truly secure equality and liberty for all. An essential book on the tradition of liberal socialism for students, researchers, and scholars of political science and humanities. Matthew McManus is a lecturer in Political Science at the University of Michigan, USA. He is the author of The Political Right and Equality (Routledge) and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights among other books. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
How should broadly liberal democratic societies stop illiberal and antidemocratic views from gaining influence while honouring liberal democratic values? This question has become particularly pressing after the recent successes of right-wing populist leaders and parties across Europe, in the US, and beyond. Politicizing Political Liberalism: On the Containment of Illiberal and Antidemocratic Views (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Alasia Nuti and Gabriele Badano develops a normative account of liberal democratic self-defence that denounces the failures of real-world societies without excusing those supporting illiberal and antidemocratic political actors. This account is innovative in focusing not only on the role of the state but also on the duties of nonstate actors including citizens, partisans, and municipalities. Consequently, it also addresses cases where the central government has at least been partly captured by illiberal and antidemocratic agents. Gabriele Badano and Alasia Nuti's approach builds on John Rawls's treatment of political liberalism and his awareness of the need to 'contain' unreasonable views, that is, views denying that society should treat every person as free and equal through a mutually acceptable system of social cooperation where pluralism is to be expected. The authors offer original solutions to vexed problems within political liberalism by putting forward a new account of the relation between ideal and non-ideal theory, explaining why it is justifiable to exclude unreasonable persons from the constituency of public reason, and showing that the strictures of public reason do not apply to those suffering from severe injustice. In doing so, the book further politicizes political liberalism and turns it into a framework that can insightfully respond to the challenges of real politics. Alasia Nuti is senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the University of York. Her work is situated at the intersection of analytical political theory, critical theory, gender studies and critical race theory Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature.
Les réseaux sociaux, autrefois modérateurs, deviennent des acteurs politiques influents. Elon Musk, avec une vision libertarienne, a réduit la modération sur X (ex-Twitter), réintégrant des comptes haineux sous prétexte de défendre une liberté d'expression "absolue". Cette stratégie sert ses intérêts économiques et politiques, notamment en favorisant Donald Trump. De son côté, Facebook a supprimé le fact-checking, cédant aux pressions de Trump et alignant ses priorités sur la "liberté d'expression", tout en économisant sur la modération. Ces décisions affaiblissent la démocratie, favorisant la concentration du pouvoir et la manipulation des opinions, comme l'avaient prévu John Rawls et Hannah Arendt. Merci pour votre écoute N'hésistez pas à vous abonner également aux podcasts des séquences phares de Matin Première: L'Invité Politique : https://audmns.com/LNCogwPL'édito politique « Les Coulisses du Pouvoir » : https://audmns.com/vXWPcqxL'humour de Matin Première : https://audmns.com/tbdbwoQRetrouvez tous les contenus de la RTBF sur notre plateforme Auvio.be Retrouvez également notre offre info ci-dessous : Le Monde en Direct : https://audmns.com/TkxEWMELes Clés : https://audmns.com/DvbCVrHLe Tournant : https://audmns.com/moqIRoC5 Minutes pour Comprendre : https://audmns.com/dHiHssrEt si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.
Les réseaux sociaux, autrefois modérateurs, deviennent des acteurs politiques influents. Elon Musk, avec une vision libertarienne, a réduit la modération sur X (ex-Twitter), réintégrant des comptes haineux sous prétexte de défendre une liberté d'expression "absolue". Cette stratégie sert ses intérêts économiques et politiques, notamment en favorisant Donald Trump. De son côté, Facebook a supprimé le fact-checking, cédant aux pressions de Trump et alignant ses priorités sur la "liberté d'expression", tout en économisant sur la modération. Ces décisions affaiblissent la démocratie, favorisant la concentration du pouvoir et la manipulation des opinions, comme l'avaient prévu John Rawls et Hannah Arendt. Merci pour votre écoute Les coulisses du Pouvoir c'est également en direct tous les jours de la semaine vers 7h40 sur www.rtbf.be/lapremiere Retrouvez tous les épisodes de Les coulisses du Pouvoir sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/11443 Retrouvez tous les contenus de la RTBF sur notre plateforme Auvio.beRetrouvez également notre offre info ci-dessous :Le Monde en Direct : https://audmns.com/TkxEWMELes Clés : https://audmns.com/DvbCVrHLe Tournant : https://audmns.com/moqIRoC5 Minutes pour Comprendre : https://audmns.com/dHiHssrLes couleurs de l'info : https://audmns.com/MYzowgwMatin Première : https://audmns.com/aldzXlmEt ses séquences-phares : L'Invité Politique : https://audmns.com/LNCogwP L'humour de Matin Première : https://audmns.com/tbdbwoQTransversales : notre collection de reportages infos longue forme : https://audmns.com/WgqwiUpN'oubliez pas de vous y abonner pour ne rien manquer.Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement.
Ned Block is Silver Professor at New York University in the Departments of Philosophy and Psychology, where he works on the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of neuroscience, and cognitive science. In this episode, Robinson and Ned discuss some of the titans he studied under, ChatGPT and the nature of artificial intelligence, the Turing Test, androids, consciousness, the connection between seeing and thinking, blindsight, change blindness, and more. Ned's most recent book is The Border Between Seeing and Thinking (OUP, 2023). Ned's Website: https://www.nedblock.us The Border Between Seeing and Thinking: https://a.co/d/fqVb7gj OUTLINE 00:00 Introduction 00:53 Ned's Entry into Philosophy of Mind 02:08 On Hilary Putnam, John Rawls, and Philippa Foot 08:10 Can ChatGPT Do Multiplication? 10:57 Does Noam Chomsky Understand ChatGPT? 13:11 Is the Turing Test Completely Wrong? 17:52 On Daniel Dennett 23:46 On Michael Graziano and the Attention Schema Theory of Consciousness 26:03 Are Animals Conscious? 30:51 Does ChatGPT Pass the Turing Test? 36:53 Mary in the White Room 41:16 The Blockhead Thought Experiment 45:53 How to Show that ChatGPT Is Dumb 48:51 Why Can't ChatGPT Reason About Images? 51:48 How to Create an Android 55:10 What Is Thought? 1:00:13 Susan Carey 1:03:19 Are There Different Kinds of Consciousness? 1:05:10 On Psychoanalysis 1:06:08 What Are Blindsight and Change Blindness? 1:11:38 The Difference Between Seeing and Thinking 1:16:03 Was Helen Keller Conscious? 1:18:39 Are Salmon Conscious? 1:20:58 What Are the Dominant Theories of Consciousness? 1:27:35 Do We Know What Consciousness Is? 1:31:25 Functionalism and Mental Properties Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveFor some people, “liberal socialism” sounds like an oxymoron. Liberalism is a political idea that promises to protect individual rights. Socialism, on the other hand, is about collective power: the power of workers to organize and, if not quite seize, at least have a say in the administration of the means of production. Liberalism is about freedom, while socialism is about equality. Not so, argues Matthew McManus, political science professor at the University of Michigan. In his new book, The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism, McManus recovers the oft-forgotten tradition of liberal socialism. He tells the story of great liberal socialist thinkers while also crafting a contemporary version of liberal socialism, relevant for today.Samuel Kimbriel and Santiago Ramos open the episode with a discussion about the 2022 “Freedom Convoy” trucker protests in Canada, which displayed some of the tensions between socialist and liberal ideals. The conversation moves on to the thought of Mary Wollstonecraft, whether John Rawls was a socialist, and how Matthew's experience working for McDonald's converted him to socialism.Samuel and Santiago press Matthew about a core first principle: equality. Why does he hold to this principle? Where does it come from? How can it be philosophically defended and justified? Matthew considers the different sources of political conviction: personal experience, and political theory. Which one is more influential in a person's mind?In our bonus section for paid subscribers, Matthew criticizes the “nebbish incrementalism” of neoliberalism and the excesses of “postmodern skepticism,” while declaring: “Left wing intellectuals have a lot more that they could be doing.”Required Reading:* Matthew McManus, The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism (Amazon). * Matthew McManus faculty page (University of Michigan). * Matthew McManus and Carlo Lancellotti debate about conservatives and equality (WoC). * Matthew McManus, “The Liberal Democratic Socialism of John Rawls” (Liberal Currents). * “Canadian Trucker Convoy Descends on Ottawa to Protest Vaccine Mandates” (New York Times). * Article about 2010 anti-G20 protests in Canada: “Police take ‘pre-emptive strikes' with sweeping arrests” (CTV News). * Santiago Ramos, “The Meaning of McDonald's” (WoC).* Samuel Kimbriel and Damir Marusic debate “What Politics is Really About” (WoC). * Podcast with Alexandre Lefebvre, “Liberalism is Not Neutral” (WoC). * Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (Amazon). * Mary Wollstonecraft (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). This post is part of our collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets.Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!
We discuss the US state in the throes of the ideological crisis of the state. We examine some theories including John Rawls's theory of justice.
Ben Burgis welcomes back major friend of the pod Matt to talk his new book: "The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism," in which he "presents a comprehensive guide to the liberal socialist tradition, stretching from Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine through John Stuart Mill to Irving Howe, John Rawls, and Charles Mills." Buy the book here: https://www.routledge.com/The-Political-Theory-of-Liberal-Socialism/McManus/p/book/9781032647234?srsltid=AfmBOopS7HP7ywGhn4LB27-wBYa_vGV9tmNts-t-GIdllMV_bajrCsQrFollow Matt on Twitter: @MattPolProfFollow Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgisFollow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_ShowBecome a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:patreon.com/benburgisRead the weekly philosophy Substack:benburgis.substack.com
"Does my crush love me? I really need to know.""Do you think we're living in the most advanced civilization that has ever inhabited Earth?""King Crimson was at their peak with Wetton, David Cross and Bruford, but Taylor Swift is a billionaire. STEFAN - have you heard Mozart's newly discovered 'A Very Little Night Music'?""What's your opinion of Jordan Peterson's work?""Is statism collapsing?""Is your book available in hardcover?""What's your favorite heavy metal band?""is the traditional Catholicism the most based thing on the Earth?""What happened to your YouTube channel?""Do you think these problems with NAP can be resolved?"The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), is a libertarian ethical stance that argues that aggression—defined as the initiation of force or fraud against another person's property or person—is inherently immoral. While the principle has intuitive appeal, it faces significant philosophical, practical, and ethical challenges that undermine its universality and application."1. Ambiguity in Defining "Aggression""Subjectivity of Aggression: The NAP relies on a clear definition of "aggression," yet many actions can be interpreted as aggressive or non-aggressive depending on perspective. For instance:"If someone refuses to vaccinate during a pandemic, is that an act of aggression by endangering others' health, or is forcing them to vaccinate aggression?"Pollution from a factory might harm others, but is it aggression if the harm is indirect and unintended?"This ambiguity makes it difficult to apply the NAP consistently."2. Lack of a Mechanism for Collective Action"Addressing Collective Problems:"The NAP is highly individualistic and struggles to address issues that require collective solutions, such as environmental protection, public health, or infrastructure."For example:"Climate change results from aggregate actions that harm others, yet enforcing emissions reductions could be seen as an initiation of force against individuals or corporations."Public goods like roads, education, and defense require taxation, which the NAP might label as aggression, leaving no clear path to fund or manage such necessities."3. Assumes Absolute Property Rights"Property Rights Are Not Universally Agreed Upon: The NAP assumes that property rights are fundamental and self-evident, yet property systems are human constructs that vary across cultures and contexts."For example:"Indigenous communities often view land as communal rather than private, making the enforcement of private property rights in such contexts potentially aggressive."Historical Injustice: Many property holdings result from historical aggression (e.g., colonization, slavery). The NAP offers no clear guidance on addressing these injustices because enforcing reparations could violate the principle."4. Fails to Account for Power Imbalances"Inequality and Coercion:"The NAP does not account for systemic power imbalances that can lead to de facto coercion without overt aggression."For example:"A worker "choosing" between starvation and accepting exploitative labor conditions may not face physical aggression, but their choices are constrained by economic coercion."Corporate monopolies can dominate markets and restrict freedom without violating the NAP, yet they create conditions of harm or dependency."5. Incompatibility with Emergency Situations"Moral Exceptions: The NAP struggles with situations where initiating force might be morally justified or necessary to prevent greater harm."For example:"Breaking into a cabin to survive in a blizzard technically violates the NAP but might be considered ethically justifiable."Preventive action, such as disarming someone threatening violence, could be seen as aggression under the NAP, even if it avoids greater harm."6. Over-Simplification of Ethics"Moral Complexity: Ethical decision-making often involves balancing competing values, such as individual rights, collective welfare, and justice. The NAP reduces morality to a single principle, ignoring the complexity of real-world dilemmas."Utilitarian Concerns: Following the NAP rigidly could lead to suboptimal outcomes, such as allowing preventable suffering or harm if addressing it would require "aggression.""7. Practical Limitations"Enforcement Dilemmas: Even within a system governed by the NAP, enforcing the principle requires some authority to define and address aggression. For instance:"Resolving disputes over property boundaries or contractual breaches might involve coercive mechanisms, contradicting the NAP."A purely voluntary system lacks a practical means of ensuring compliance or protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation or harm."8. Historical and Theoretical Criticism"Historical Evidence: Societies that have operated on principles akin to the NAP (e.g., laissez-faire capitalism) have often resulted in significant inequality, exploitation, and harm, suggesting that the principle is insufficient for creating equitable or stable societies."Philosophical Counterarguments: Thinkers like Karl Marx or John Rawls argue that focusing solely on individual rights and property ignores the broader social and structural forces that shape human relationships and justice."While the Non-Aggression Principle provides a simple and appealing ethical framework, its oversimplification of complex moral and social issues renders it problematic in practice. It fails to account for ambiguous definitions of aggression, systemic power imbalances, collective action needs, and situations where initiating force might prevent greater harm. Ultimately, the NAP's rigid adherence to individual rights and property neglects the interconnected and nuanced realities of human society.""when next bitcoin roundtable?"GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material, as well as targeted AIs for Real-Time Relationships, BitCoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-Ins. Don't miss the private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022
******Support the channel****** Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenter PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on****** Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/ The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoB Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/ Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Matthew McManus is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan. He is the author of books like The Emergence of Postmodernity, The Political Right and Equality, and The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism. In this episode, we focus on The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism. We start by talking about liberalism, socialism, and liberal socialism. We then get into the historical origins of liberal socialism, with Thomas Paine and Mary Wollstonecraft, and then go through the main figures that have contributed to liberal socialism, including John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, and John Rawls. We discuss how liberal socialism relates to social democracy, communism, and neoliberalism. We talk about the shortcomings of liberal socialism, and Black liberal socialism. Finally, we discuss the future of liberal socialism. -- A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, STARRY, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, BENJAMIN GELBART, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, AND TED FARRIS! A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, NICK GOLDEN, AND CHRISTINE GLASS! AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!
Professor and author Matt McManus returns to the show to discuss his newest book, "The Political Theory of Liberal Socialism". Together they explore the major themes of the book, hash out the disagreements they have between revolutionary Marxism and democratic socialism, explore critical thinkers like Karl Marx, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, and John Rawls, wrestle with the questions of revolution and communism as the ultimate goal of socialism, and much more. "Providing a comprehensive critical genealogy of liberal socialism from a sympathetic but critical standpoint, McManus traces its core to the Revolutionary period that catalyzed major divisions in liberal political theory to the French Revolution that saw the emergence of writers like Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine who argued that liberal principles could only be inadequately instantiated in a society with high levels of material and social inequality to John Stuart Mill, the first major thinker who declared himself a liberal and a socialist and who made major contributions to both traditions through his efforts to synthesize and conciliate them." Check out our other episodes with Matt HERE Outro Song: "Best of All Possible Worlds" by Ajj feat: Kool Keith & Kimya Dawson Support Rev Left HERE Follow us on IG HERE
Yascha Mounk and Alexandre Lefebvre discuss taking liberalism seriously as the main moral paradigm of our world. Alexandre Lefebvre is a professor of politics and philosophy at the University of Sydney. His books include Human Rights as a Way of Life and, most recently, Liberalism as a Way of Life. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Alexandre Lefebvre discuss the difference between political liberalism and liberalism as a comprehensive doctrine—or “way of life”; how we can uphold the core tenets of comprehensive liberalism—such as freedom, fairness, and reciprocity—in our daily lives; and the enduring relevance of the 20th century's foremost liberal philosopher, John Rawls. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan Ruberry Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss A Theory of Justice by John Rawls (1921 - 2002) which has been called the most influential book in twentieth century political philosophy. It was first published in 1971. Rawls drew on his own experience in WW2 and saw the chance in its aftermath to build a new society, one founded on personal liberty and fair equality of opportunity. While in that just society there could be inequalities, Rawls' radical idea was that those inequalities must be to the greatest advantage not to the richest but to the worst off.WithFabienne Peter Professor of Philosophy at the University of WarwickMartin O'Neill Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of YorkAndJonathan Wolff The Alfred Landecker Professor of Values and Public Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford and Fellow of Wolfson CollegeProducer: Simon TillotsonIn Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio Production
Could the answer to building a more just society lie in 50-year-old ideas? Our guest this week points to the ideas of John Rawls, one of the greatest political philosophers, as a blueprint of sorts for building a more equitable society. Daniel Chandler is the research director of the Programme on Cohesive Capitalism at the London School of Economics. He's also an economist, philosopher and author of “Free and Equal: A Manifesto for a Just Society.” He joins WITHpod to discuss how we might overcome some of the most devastating and escalating present day crises, what adopting Rawls' liberal political framework could look like and more.
On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the the thought of political theorist John Rawls before introducing Hillsdale College Politics professor Kevin Slack. American politics have drastically transformed over the last few decades as a ruling elite has emerged that, despite being from different parties, largely shares radical ideologies centered around identity politics. The change is not simply the natural conclusion of progressivism, but rather a series of radical movements that have provided new ideas and shifted the Left from the liberalism of Franklin Roosevelt to the Great Awokening of Barack Obama's second term. In response to the stagflation of the 1970s, Democratic and Republican leaders began to form a “neoliberal consensus” and advocated policies that led to outsourcing, the rise of monopolies, and a decline in living standards for most Americans. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the the thought of political theorist John Rawls before introducing Hillsdale College Politics professor Kevin Slack. American politics have drastically transformed over the last few decades as a ruling elite has emerged that, despite being from different parties, largely shares radical ideologies centered around identity politics. The change is not simply the natural conclusion of progressivism, but rather a series of radical movements that have provided new ideas and shifted the Left from the liberalism of Franklin Roosevelt to the Great Awokening of Barack Obama's second term. In response to the stagflation of the 1970s, Democratic and Republican leaders began to form a “neoliberal consensus” and advocated policies that led to outsourcing, the rise of monopolies, and a decline in living standards for most Americans. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Dr. Alejandro Nava and Dr. Raúl Zegarra converse about their respective books, Street Scriptures: Between God and Hip-Hop (University of Chicago Press, 2022) and A Revolutionary Faith: Liberation Theology Between Public Religion and Public Reason (Stanford University Press, 2023). Both writers were students of David Tracy and they share the concern of public theology's impact on broader society. Dr. Zegarra embraces what he considers the sophisticated philosophy of John Rawls, in particular, “the way he thinks about justice…for the poor.” Conversations at the interface of diverse traditions and the public is of utmost importance to his interests. In his practice, Dr. Nava's work at the “hyphen that connects the mystical and prophetic” comes to life through hip-hop as “a voice of disenfranchised communities” that “...emerged out of the cracks and corners of the modern world.”
The Common Good podcast is a conversation about the significance of place, eliminating economic isolation and the structure of belonging. In this episode, Joey Taylor and Sam Pressler speak with Dr. Ian Marcus Corbin about loneliness as a spiritual and material crisis, agency, world making, and Restoring the Common Good.Ian Marcus Corbin is a philosopher in Cambridge, MA, serving on the faculties of Neurology and Bioethics at Harvard Medical School, where he co-directs the Human Network Initiative, and is a Senior Fellow at the think tank Capita. He has a book on belonging forthcoming.Check out Sam's new policy framework.Works Referenced in this podcast:Radical Hope by Jonathon LearDeaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism boy Anne Case and Angus DeatonThe Loneliest Crowd by Ian Marcus CorbinWe Were Wrong About What Happened to America in 2020 by Eric KlinenbergAlienated America by Timothy CarneyHow Organizations Develop Activists: Civic Associations and Leadership in the 21st Century by Hahrie HanGeorge W Bush's Ownership SocietyWhy is it So Expensive to Build Stuff in America on Plain English Podcast with Derek ThompsonZero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future by Peter ThielThe Left Needs a Spiritual Renaissance. So Does America. By Ian Marcus Corbin and Senator Chris MurphyREMARKS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS, MARCH 18, 1968 by Robert F. KennedyRead about the Saguaro Seminars in this book by Robert Putnam - Better Together: Restoring the American CommunityRead about Rawlsian Bracketing here - Neutered by Neutrality: The Abiding Influence of John Rawls, Part Two by Randall Smith“A House Called Tomorrow” by Alberto RíosThis episode was produced by Joey Taylor and the music is from Jeff Gorman. You can find more information about the Common Good Collective here. Common Good Podcast is a production of Bespoken Live & Common Change.
In this episode, we discuss Robert Nozick's libertarian political philosophy as presented in his 1974 book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. We consider his challenges to leftist thought, especially the sort of left liberalism championed by the likes of John Rawls. We take seriously his demand for an argument for egalitarianism and his critique of patterned accounts of distributive justice. But we also give him a hard time for some of his more absurd arguments, from those about swimming pools to those concerning wealthy basketball players and the all-important human need to feel like a very special boy. When it comes to libertarianism, this is in fact them sending their best.leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphilReferences:Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974).Katrina Forrester, In the Shadow of Justice: Postwar Liberalism and the Remaking of Political Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019).Music:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN
In this podcast conversation, we talk about raising boys, biblical masculinity, Jordan Peterson, toxic masculinity vs. biblical masculinity, the so-called "war on men," and other related issues. Dr. Anthony Bradley (Ph.D. Westminster Seminary) was most recently professor of religious studies and director of the Center for the Study of Human Flourishing at The King's College, Theologian-In-Residence at Redeemer Presbyterian Church—Lincoln Square, and now serves as a distinguished research fellow at The Acton Institute and Research Professor of Interdisciplinary and Theological Studies at Kuyper College. His books include: Liberating Black Theology (2010), Black and Tired (2011), The Political Economy of Liberation (2012), Keep Your Head Up (2012), Aliens In The Promised Land (2013), John Rawls and Christian Social Engagement (2014), Black Scholars In White Space (2015), Something Seems Strange (2016), Ending Overcriminalization and Mass Incarceration (2018), Faith In Society (2019), Why Black Lives Matter (2020), and Heroic Fraternities (2023). Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw
Yes - 365 Episodes. A fresh Tamsen and Dan Experience for every day of the year. (Oy) This week: watching The Old Oak. Bronx Zoo '90. Jonathan Haidt and Anxious Kids. Follow your Opportunities with Bonnie Hammer. Elder Mediation. John Rawls! David Shapiro, poet and Columbia poster boy for student protesting in the '60's. Excluding Aaron Gordon from dinner. Credits: Talent: Tamsen Granger and Dan Abuhoff Engineer: Ellie Suttmeier Art: Zeke Abuhoff
क्या आपने कभी सोचा है कि एक न्यायपूर्ण समाज कैसा दिखता है? आज हम न्यायपूर्ण समाज की दो परिकल्पना को समझेंगे, जॉन रॉल्स और रोबर्ट नोज़िक के दृष्टिकोण से। जॉन रॉल्स करते हैं समानता की पैरवी, जब के नोज़िक रखते हैं स्वतंत्रता का पक्ष। इस पुलियाबाज़ी में हम दोनों पक्षों के तर्क को समझने की कोशिश करेंगे। क्या इसमें कोई समाधान की आशा है? वो तो आप ही सुनिए, सोचिये और बताइये। In this episode of Puliyabaazi, we delve into the philosophical debate between John Rawls and Robert Nozick on what makes a just society. What is more important? equality or liberty?John Rawls proposes the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, where individuals choose principles of justice for a society while not knowing their own social status. Robert Nozick, on the other hand, prioritizes individual liberty. His book Anarchy, State, and Utopia argues for minimal government intervention, emphasizing the right to keep what one has justly acquired. The Debate Heats UpThis episode is an exploration of these two differing points of view. We unpack their core arguments, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and delve into some real-world implications of their ideas.We discuss:* Is philosophy useful in crafting policy?* Rawls' Theory of Justice* Greatest Equal Liberty Principle* Maximin Principle* Do we really believe in equality?* Nozick's answer to Rawls* A patterned distribution will not workReadings:A Theory of Justice by John RawlsAnarchy, State and Utopia by Robert NozickListen to related Puliyabaazi:गांधी टैगोर की पुलियाबाज़ी. The Gandhi Tagore Debatesएक सवाल, कई जवाब: क्या सम्पत्ति कर आर्थिक असमानता से निजात दिला सकता है? Can wealth tax solve economic inequality?If you have any questions for the guest or feedback for us, please comment here or write to us at puliyabaazi@gmail.com. If you like our work, please subscribe and share this Puliyabaazi with your friends, family and colleagues.Website: https://puliyabaazi.inHosts: @saurabhchandra @pranaykotas @thescribblebeeTwitter: @puliyabaazi Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/puliyabaazi/Subscribe & listen to the podcast on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Castbox, AudioBoom, YouTube, Spotify or any other podcast app. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.puliyabaazi.in
In this episode, we discuss essays from throughout G.A. Cohen's philosophical career. Cohen is known as one of the founders of Analytical Marxism, so we talk about what this tradition in Marxist thinking is about and how it handles the problems of political let-down and disillusionment that affect us all. We also get into his polemics against the libertarians and John Rawls in his essays on exploitation, freedom, and justice.This is just a short clip from the full episode, which is available to our subscribers on Patreon:patreon.com/leftofphilosophyReferences:G.A. Cohen, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989).G.A. Cohen, “The Labor Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 8(4)(1979): 338-360.G.A. Cohen, “The Structure of Proletarian Unfreedom,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 12(1)(1983): 3-33.G.A. Cohen, Rescuing Justice and Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).Nicholas Vrousalis, The Political Philosophy of G.A. Cohen (London: Bloomsbury, 2015).Music:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN
Freedom and Equality — can societies aim for both at the same time? Author Daniel Chandler argues that they can, with some help from the American political theorist, John Rawls. He tells IDEAS what a political platform based on Rawls' books would look like.
Une émission de Philippe Meyer, enregistrée au studio l'Arrière-boutique le 9 février 2024. Avec cette semaine : David Djaïz, entrepreneur, essayiste et ancien secrétaire général du Conseil National de la Refondation. Béatrice Giblin, directrice de la revue Hérodote et fondatrice de l'Institut Français de Géopolitique. Nicole Gnesotto, vice-présidente de l'Institut Jacques Delors. Lucile Schmid, vice-présidente de La Fabrique écologique et membre du comité de rédaction de la revue Esprit. PREMIÈRE PARTIE : DIAGNOSTIC En 2022, 82 % de l'énergie consommée dans le monde était d'origine fossile. Cette proportion reste inchangée depuis quarante ans. De ce chiffre accablant, David Djaïz et Xavier Desjardins tirent un constat provocateur : « la transformation écologique n'a pas commencé. » Malgré la reconnaissance de la crise climatique et les efforts engagés pour combattre ses effets sur l'environnement, la croissance démographique, la hausse de la consommation énergétique et les hésitations politiques maintiennent notre dépendance aux énergies fossiles. « Pire, les timides mesures écologiques déjà engagées rencontrent souvent de virulentes oppositions partout en Europe ». Le défi climatique se caractérise par une double contrainte de temps et d'objectif. Nous devons, en effet, atteindre la neutralité carbone autour de 2050. D'où le titre de votre essai : La Révolution obligée, au double sens du terme, à la fois inévitable et fortement dirigée. « Malheureusement, nous n'avons pas trente ans, pas même dix pour penser et expérimenter le comment agir. Aussi renvoyez-vous à un penseur du gouvernement dans l'urgence, Machiavel, qui nous apprend que « lorsque la tempête approche, une pensée politique valide ne se développe pas in abstracto, mais se forge en situation, sous les contraintes concrètes de l'action. » Ces contraintes sont nombreuses. D'abord, comme la révolution industrielle, la transformation écologique exige un changement de ressources énergétiques, le déploiement d'innovations technologiques et institutionnelles, une forte augmentation de l'investissement dans de nouvelles industries et la relégation de certains équipements. Mais elle doit se produire à une vitesse bien plus rapide et sans les mêmes promesses de gains économiques. C'est pourquoi « tout le monde se renvoie la balle » ; chacun estime que les autres doivent porter la majeure partie des efforts. Ainsi la transformation écologique est-elle la source d'une compétition entre les territoires, les secteurs, les classes sociales et les générations. De plus, les problèmes écologiques entrent parfois en contradiction. Par exemple, certaines mesures en faveur de la décarbonation peuvent nuire à la biodiversité ou au cycle de l'eau. Enfin, régler l'urgence climatique ne peut être accompli indépendamment des huit autres processus écologiques qui caractérisent le système Terre. Malgré ces obstacles, « le coût de l'inaction climatique est infiniment supérieur à celui de l'action. » C'est ce qu'ont compris la Chine et les États-Unis, engagés dans des transformations intégrées à leurs stratégies nationales. La Chine, avec son concept de « civilisation écologique », mène une politique d'autoritarisme vert, tandis que les États-Unis, à travers l'Inflation Reduction Act, investissent massivement dans les énergies renouvelables et les technologies vertes. L'Europe a, quant à elle, adopté un ensemble de normes, d'instruments de marché et de soutiens à l'innovation afin de devenir le premier continent « climatiquement neutre » en 2050. Mais son Pacte Vertfait face à des défis de financement et de soutien social. Vous le jugez trop réglementaire et inadapté aux enjeux politiques, économiques et sociaux de la transition écologique. DEUXIÈME PARTIE : NOUVEAU PACTE VERT « Si l'on veut sauver la transition écologique, il faut imaginer un autre Pacte vert, une nouvelle méthode de conduite du changement écologique. Celle-ci doit s'inspirer de l'expérience chinoise ou américaine, non pas pour les imiter, mais pour comprendre combien la « civilisation écologique » chinoise comme l'IRA américain sont articulés à un imaginaire national, à un modèle de gouvernance, à une économie politique ou encore à une pratique des relations internationales. » Le nouveau Pacte vert doit s'appuyer sur les forces de l'Europe : l'État-providence ; la diversité des territoires et des modes de vie ; la vivacité de la société civile dans un cadre démocratique et pluraliste. Seul un modèle conforme au projet politique européen permettra de recueillir l'adhésion de la société. Aussi proposez-vous un nouveau contrat social qui repose sur trois piliers : un nouvel imaginaire de la solidarité ; un nouveau pacte de production et de consommation ; un nouveau mode de gouvernance. L'incertitude quant à la répartition exacte des gains et des pertes nécessite, d'après vous, l'adoption d'une nouvelle solidarité, dans le cadre d'un contrat social refondé à partir du « voile d'ignorance » du philosophe libéral John Rawls et l'acceptation collective des coûts. L'État-providence élargi que vous envisagez transcenderait les frontières nationales et inclurait l'eau, l'air, le sol, les animaux, et les végétaux. Ainsi pourrions-nous « réencastrer » nos sociétés dans les limites planétaires, tout en reconnaissant les droits des éléments non humains. Durkheim avait théorisé le passage d'une solidarité mécanique à une solidarité organique. Une solidarité écologique,pourrait renouveler la confiance dans les institutions et mobiliser les citoyens. Votre nouveau pacte de production et de consommation postule la nécessité d'une politique industrielle européenne, qui lui assure son autonomie tout en soutenant l'innovation, la production d'énergie propre et la consommation durable. Pour accompagner cette transformation, vous proposez la création d'un pass climat qui unifierait les aides existantes en faveur de la transition écologique, offrant une flexibilité et un soutien financier adaptés aux besoins et revenus de chaque citoyen européen. Financé au niveau européen, ce pass climat permettrait d'engager tous les citoyens dans l'action écologique et rendrait tangible la solidarité européenne dans la lutte contre le changement climatique. Vous proposez enfin un nouveau mode de gouvernance fondé sur le contrat. La négociation sectorielle et territoriale adapterait les exigences écologiques aux spécificités locales et permettrait ainsi une transformation plus juste et plus efficace. Vous appelez également à une nouvelle décentralisation et à l'utilisation de nouveaux outils de mesure et de suivi. Cette nouvelle architecture de la transition, fondée sur le consensus régional et la contribution active des collectivités, vise à renforcer la capacité de l'Europe à réaliser une transformation écologique harmonieuse. Vous voyez ce nouveau Pacte Vert comme une opportunité de réenchanter l'Europe et de renforcer la démocratie face aux défis écologiques.Chaque semaine, Philippe Meyer anime une conversation d'analyse politique, argumentée et courtoise, sur des thèmes nationaux et internationaux liés à l'actualité. Pour en savoir plus : www.lenouvelespritpublic.fr
It is hard to overestimate the influence of John Rawls on political philosophy and theory over the last half-century. His books have sold millions of copies worldwide, and he is one of the few philosophers whose work is known in the corridors of power as well as in the halls of academe. Rawls is most famous for the development of his view of “justice as fairness,” articulated most forcefully in his best-known work, A Theory of Justice. In it he develops a liberalism focused on improving the fate of the least advantaged, and attempts to demonstrate that, despite our differences, agreement on basic political institutions is both possible and achievable. Critics have maintained that Rawls's view is unrealistic and ultimately undemocratic. In John Rawls: The Path to a Theory of Justice(Harvard University Press, 2019), Andrius Gališanka, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Wake Forest University, argues that in misunderstanding the origins and development of Rawls's central argument, previous intellectual biographies fail to explain the novelty of his philosophical approach and so misunderstand the political vision he made prevalent. Gališanka draws on newly available archives of Rawls's unpublished essays and personal papers to clarify the justifications Rawls offered for his assumption of basic moral agreement. Gališanka's intellectual-historical approach reveals a philosopher struggling toward humbler claims than critics allege. To engage with Rawls's search for agreement is particularly valuable at this political juncture. By providing insight into the origins, aims, and arguments of A Theory of Justice, Gališanka's John Rawls will allow us to consider the philosopher's most important and influential work with fresh eyes. Ryan Tripp is part-time and full-time adjunct history faculty for Los Medanos Community College as well as the College of Online and Continuing Education at Southern New Hampshire University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
On today's show, Kit Knightly discusses what NO ONE is saying about Tucker Carlson's Putin interview. GUEST 1 OVERVIEW: Kit Knightly describes himself as an accidental journalist, deliberate contrarian, overworked editor, and increasingly impatient with the general state of things. GUEST 2 OVERVIEW: David Thunder is a university lecturer and researcher in moral, political, and social philosophy. He grew up in Ireland where he studied philosophy and French for his BA and philosophy for his MA (both at University College Dublin), followed by a couple of years of work in nonprofit administration. He then moved to the United States to pursue a Ph.D. in political science at the University of Notre Dame. His doctoral dissertation is a critique of John Rawls's ideal of public reason, focusing in particular on the moral restrictions it places on public discourse, and an attempt to elaborate a virtue-ethical ideal of public reason that gives more scope to self-expression and ethical integrity in the public square. David Thunder's website
Do you really deserve the credit for your accomplishments? Should college admissions be determined by lottery? And how did Mike's contribution to a charity auction change his life? SOURCES:Warren Buffett, investor and philanthropist.James Flynn, political philosopher at the University of Otago.Robert Frank, professor emeritus of management at Cornell SC Johnson College of Business.Rogé Karma, staff writer at The Atlantic.Nicholas Lemann, professor of journalism and dean emeritus at Columbia Journalism School.Daniel Markovits, professor of law at Yale Law School.Charles Munger, investor and philanthropist.John Rawls, 20th-century legal and political philosopher.Guy Raz, creator and host of How I Built This and Wisdom from the Top; founder and C.E.O. of Built-It Productions.Michael Sandel, professor of government at Harvard University.Martin Seligman, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.Ryan Smith, founder and executive chairman of Qualtrics; owner of the Utah Jazz. RESOURCES:The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? by Michael Sandel (2020).The Meritocracy Trap: How America's Foundational Myth Feeds Inequality, Dismantles the Middle Class, and Devours the Elite, by Daniel Markovits (2019)."'The Meritocracy Trap,' Explained," by Rogé Karma (Vox, 2019)."Reflections About Intelligence Over 40 Years," by James Flynn (Intelligence, 2018)."Here's Why Warren Buffett Says That He and Charlie Munger Are Successful," by Emmie Martin (CNBC, 2018).Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, by Robert Frank (2016).The Lottery, film by Madeleine Sackler (2010).The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy, by Nicholas Lemann (1999).“The Psychology of Human Misjudgment,” speech by Charles Munger (1995). EXTRAS:"What's the Point of I.Q. Testing?" by No Stupid Questions (2023)."What's So Bad About Nepotism?" by No Stupid Questions (2022).
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
