A Critique on the Book Spheres of Justice: A Defense If Pluralism and Equality
In Spheres of Justice Walzer offers an explanation of the principles of distributive justice based on an understanding of the meanings of the various social good. This explanation of justice is “pluralistic” and based on the idea of “complex equality.” Walzer’s point is that each area of social life...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fas |
| Published: |
Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS)
2021-08-01
|
| Series: | پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://criticalstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_6743_66eea8c5cffefc2f6086e5963ca3e303.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841555320874205184 |
|---|---|
| author | Mohammad Shojaiyan |
| author_facet | Mohammad Shojaiyan |
| author_sort | Mohammad Shojaiyan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In Spheres of Justice Walzer offers an explanation of the principles of distributive justice based on an understanding of the meanings of the various social good. This explanation of justice is “pluralistic” and based on the idea of “complex equality.” Walzer’s point is that each area of social life has its own criteria for distributing social good, and one area should not be extended to other areas. The opposite of Walzer’s ideal justice is coercion and domination, which means the domination of the standard of justice in one area over other areas of social life. The diversity of the principles of the distribution of social good, the attempt to reconcile pluralism and equality, and the opposition to the domination of capital over the realm of political power are among the highlights of Walzer”s theory of justice. Walzer’s critics, on the other hand, argue that Walzer’s conservative nature makes him unable to take a clear critical stance on the wrong ways of distributing social good. Lack of a clear criterion for understanding the social criteria of the distribution of goods, the relativity of social meanings, and inability to provide a criterion for criticizing incorrect methods in the distribution of social good are among the most important criticisms of Walzer’s theory of justice. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-723b9fe8ab9d4f4ab88fd43319a3a8f9 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2383-1650 |
| language | fas |
| publishDate | 2021-08-01 |
| publisher | Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی |
| spelling | doaj-art-723b9fe8ab9d4f4ab88fd43319a3a8f92025-01-08T05:42:25ZfasInstitute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS)پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی2383-16502021-08-0121618920710.30465/crtls.2020.33106.19916743A Critique on the Book Spheres of Justice: A Defense If Pluralism and EqualityMohammad Shojaiyan0Assistant professor, Faculty of Political Sciences, Research Institute of Hawzah and University, Qom, IranIn Spheres of Justice Walzer offers an explanation of the principles of distributive justice based on an understanding of the meanings of the various social good. This explanation of justice is “pluralistic” and based on the idea of “complex equality.” Walzer’s point is that each area of social life has its own criteria for distributing social good, and one area should not be extended to other areas. The opposite of Walzer’s ideal justice is coercion and domination, which means the domination of the standard of justice in one area over other areas of social life. The diversity of the principles of the distribution of social good, the attempt to reconcile pluralism and equality, and the opposition to the domination of capital over the realm of political power are among the highlights of Walzer”s theory of justice. Walzer’s critics, on the other hand, argue that Walzer’s conservative nature makes him unable to take a clear critical stance on the wrong ways of distributing social good. Lack of a clear criterion for understanding the social criteria of the distribution of goods, the relativity of social meanings, and inability to provide a criterion for criticizing incorrect methods in the distribution of social good are among the most important criticisms of Walzer’s theory of justice.https://criticalstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_6743_66eea8c5cffefc2f6086e5963ca3e303.pdfjusticedistributive justicesocialismequalitywalzer |
| spellingShingle | Mohammad Shojaiyan A Critique on the Book Spheres of Justice: A Defense If Pluralism and Equality پژوهشنامۀ انتقادی متون و برنامههای علوم انسانی justice distributive justice socialism equality walzer |
| title | A Critique on the Book Spheres of Justice: A Defense If Pluralism and Equality |
| title_full | A Critique on the Book Spheres of Justice: A Defense If Pluralism and Equality |
| title_fullStr | A Critique on the Book Spheres of Justice: A Defense If Pluralism and Equality |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Critique on the Book Spheres of Justice: A Defense If Pluralism and Equality |
| title_short | A Critique on the Book Spheres of Justice: A Defense If Pluralism and Equality |
| title_sort | critique on the book spheres of justice a defense if pluralism and equality |
| topic | justice distributive justice socialism equality walzer |
| url | https://criticalstudy.ihcs.ac.ir/article_6743_66eea8c5cffefc2f6086e5963ca3e303.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mohammadshojaiyan acritiqueonthebookspheresofjusticeadefenseifpluralismandequality AT mohammadshojaiyan critiqueonthebookspheresofjusticeadefenseifpluralismandequality |