1,721,206 research outputs found
Why save the planet?
No full textPolitical philosophers are divided about how best to respond to climate change, but united in viewing climate change as a problem that can be solved permanently if only a favoured proposal were adopted. Philosophers claim to be able to save the world, if only political leaders took their advice. This is a serious concern because political philosophers misunderstand the kind of problem that climate change presents. I argue that climate change is not a problem to be solved, but a problem to be managed, where changes may occur irrespective of the policies we choose. The result is that policy proposals by political philosophers fail to achieve their stated aims largely because they mischaracterise the kind of problem they attempt to handle. Climate change is a problem that cannot go away no matter our efforts, and so no final end-state solution is possible, such as a world without climate change. This leads us to consider fundamental questions about the importance of why we should save the planet where our success may be beyond our reach
The problem with polygamy
No full textPolygamy is a hotly contested practice and open to widespread misunderstandings. This practice is defined as a relationship between either one husband and multiple wives or one wife and multiple husbands. This chapter focuses on limited defenses of polygamy offered recently by Chesire Calhoun and Martha Nussbaum. It argues that these defenses are unconvincing. The problem with polygamy is primarily that it is a structurally inegalitarian practice in both theory and fact. The chapter presents evidence from several studies of polygamy that women in polygamous marriages are at a greater risk of harmful effects. It explains the Calhoun's and Nussbaum's limited defense of polygamy. The chapter offers further arguments against their defenses arising from problems associated with the contemporary practice of polygamy. It concludes that, while Calhoun and Nussbaum provide an important new series of arguments in favor of a limited defense of polygamy, this defense is not ultimately successful. Polygamy should be opposed
Alcohol, Risk and Public Policy
Full text linkAlcohol occupies an important place in Western societies. It is difficult to imagine a return to prohibition as popularity or even possible. Nevertheless, alcohol is often present in crime. Or stated differently, many crimes are committed by persons that have consumed alcohol and perhaps while under its influence. Alcohol might be considered a double-edged sword as something we use when celebrating positive achievements, such as a new job or marriage, but also something used where others engage in crime. Perhaps alcohol should be permitted, but its use brings risks that may bear on public policy makers. This chapter examines the relation of risks and public policy through the lens of alcohol and crime. Alcohol leads a double-life as a fountain of celebration, but also a wellspring of potentially serious harms. Our question is how associated risks from its use might be managed much better. This question is approached through considering three different arenas each within the broad remit of English criminal law although addressing broader issues of criminal justice more widely. The first area is drunkenness and criminal liability. The second area considers the option of an additional tax on alcohol per unit. The last arena examined is a consideration of whether nudges might be more effect. The chapter concludes that the criminal law is a crude mechanism for grappling with complex issues of criminal responsibility for any higher risks associated with becoming under the influence. In short, the legal position is fairly intolerant and this has advantages in terms of administering justice. Higher taxation through so-called ‘sin taxes’ might also bring advantages, but there remain serious concerns to address as well. Perhaps an underexplored area for public policy decision-making is designing better nudges. This is examined and defended below
A defence of jury nullification
No full textIn both Great Britain and the United States there has been a growing debate about the modern acceptability of jury nullification. Properly understoodj,u ries do not havea ny constitutionalr ight to ignore the law, but they do have the power to do so nevertheless. Juries that nullify may be motivated by a variety of concerns:t oo harshs entencesi,m properg overnmenta ction. racism, etc. In this article, I shall attempt to defend jury nullification on a number of grounds. First, I discusst he use of generalv erdicts and reject their replacemenitn criminal trials by special verdicts. Second, I examine verdicts based upon mistakes and racial prejudice, turning my attention to perverse verdicts and the question of whether or not juries are guilty of legislating when nullifying the law. Finally, I look at the problem of the awarding of excessive damages by juries. My goal will be to provide a sound theoretical defence of the practice of jury nullification
The right to trial by jury
No full textRecently, the right to trial by jury has attracted a number of vociferous critics zvith deep reservations about the use of juries, most of whom are in favour of greatly restricting the use of juries with a minon"ty desiring complete abolition. This article offers a justification for the continued use of jury trials. I shall critically examine the ability of juries to render just verdicts, judicial impartiality, and judicial transparency. My contention is that the judicial system that best satisfies these values is most preferable. Of course, these three values are not the only factors relevant for consideration. Empirical evidence demonstrates that juries foster both democratic participation and public legitimation of legal decisions regarding the most serious cases. Nevertheless,ju ries are costly and, therefore, economically less efficient than competing modes of trial. I do not argue that all human beings possess an inalienable legal right to be tried by a jury. However, it is my hope that this analysis will make clear zvhat we might gain or lose when zve propose jury refonns
How Global is Global Justice? Toward a Global Philosophy
Full text linkGlobal justice as a field must confront a central problem: how global is global justice? A defining feature about the burgeoning literature in global justice is its operation within a bounded, philosophical tradition. Global justice research is too often a product of one tradition in self-isolation from others that nonetheless claims to speak for what is best for all. This criticism applies to various philosophical traditions whether so-called “analytic,” “Continental” or others. The problem is that each tradition too often works independently from others to construct new ideas about the promotion of global justice: these ideas are designed by some for application to all. “Global” justice may have an international reach, but it too often lacks a more global character. The development of a more global approach to global justice raises several vexing questions. What does it mean to have a “global” approach to global justice? How “global” should any such approach be? And how can a coherent and compelling model for it be constructed? This chapter develops a new approach for a more distinctly global view of global justice: the idea of global philosophy. Most approaches to global justice are developed within bounded philosophical traditions. One problem is that each offers contributions to global justice that is constricted by the narrow bounds of their particular tradition. The issue is not only that global justice may be overly culturally-specific, but rather that bounded traditions close off important resources for addressing philosophical problems that can be accessed through closer engagement with other philosophical traditions. A global philosophy is then a more “unbound philosophy” better suited for a globalized world. Our world is ever-changing with ideas and people travelling as never before. It is time for philosophy to catch up with these developments and this chapter will explain why and how
- …
