Search Results

When constructing environmental policies in democratic regimes, there is a need for a theory that can be used not only by academics but also by politicians and activists. So why has the major part of environmental ethics failed to penetrate environmental policy and serve as its rationale? Obviously, there is a gap between the questions that environmental philosophers discuss and the issues that motivate environmental activists. Avner de‐Shalit attempts to bridge this gap by combining tools of political philosophy with questions of environmental ethics and environmental politics. He defends a radical position in relation to both environmental protection and social policies, in order to put forward a political theory, which is not only philosophically sound, but also relevant to the practice of environmental activism. The author argues that several directions in environmental ethics can be at odds with the contemporary political debates surrounding environmental politics. He then goes on to examine the environmental scope of liberalism, communitarianism, participatory democracy, and socialism, and concludes that while elements of liberalism and communitarianism may support environmental protection, it is participatory democracy and a modified version of socialism that are crucial for protecting the environment.

Offers a detailed critical analysis of the ideal of ‘community’ in politics. Traces elements of the idea of community in a number of social, philosophical, and political contexts over the last century, exploring how these have been and continue to be articulated in recent political and public policy debates. ‘Community’ is invoked as a justification for reorganization of state institutions, as the source of care and support for individuals, and as an entity that is valuable in its own right and must therefore be sustained and defended. In community development, community action, community care and community politics, the tensions and contradictions within the concept are invariably felt. Community is both inclusive and exclusive, both organized and unstructured, both hierarchical and egalitarian. The book argues that analysis of the concept ‘community’ reveals the role of ideas and ideals in shaping political action, the barriers to the realization of community in practical contexts, and ultimately the untenability of the ideal itself.

The relationship between individuals and communities — all manner of communities, but especially the state — is a central preoccupation of property theory. Across a broad range of property thought — from utilitarian to Lockean to Hegelian — scholars have expended enormous effort explaining what owners can do with their property and the extent to which the community or the state can participate in those decisions. Discussions of property rights, from whatever perspective, necessarily reflect ideas about the proper domain and limits of individual and community power. Property stands so squarely at the intersection between the individual and community because systems of property are always the creation of some community. Moreover, systems of property have as their subject matter the allocation among community members of rights and duties with respect to resources that human beings need in order to survive and flourish. These allocative decisions are crucially important both to individuals, owners and non-owners alike, and to the community as a whole. In other words, whenever we discuss property, we are unavoidably discussing the architecture of community and of the individual's place within it. Even though the relationship between individuals and community stands at the conceptual center of property theory, the normative theories of community underlying discussions of property are frequently left implicit. This book aims to remedy this deficiency. With essays by property theorists from five different countries, it addresses various facets of the intersection between property and community.

This book attempts to identify and outline the political, economic, and social norms and values associated with Europe and Europeans. It argues that regardless of the doubts associated with the exercise of European integration and the work of the European Union, and regardless of residual identities with states and nations, Europeans have much in common. The opening chapters deal with the historical development of European ideas, and are followed by chapters addressing European attitudes towards the state (including a rejection of state‐based nationalism, new ideas about patriotism and citizenship, and the importance of cosmopolitanism), the characteristics of politics and government in Europe (with an emphasis on communitarianism and the effects of the parliamentary system of government), European economic models (including the importance of welfarism and sustainable development), European social models, European attitudes towards values such as multiculturalism and secularism, and Europeanist views in regard to international relations (emphasizing civilian power and multiculturalism).

For decades, theologians and philosophers of religion have been engaged in vigorous debate about the status and nature of ecclesiology, hence of community. In that discussion, theologians have found resources in political philosophy, particularly communitarianism and political liberalism. This book turns instead to Stanley Cavell to show how his work illuminates that discussion, in particular, how his understanding of companionship and friendship might usefully complicate the communitarian‐liberal divide. Since the 1960s, Cavell has been the most category‐defying philosopher in North America as well as one of the least understood. In part, this is because philosophers are not sure what to do with Cavell's extensive engagements with literature and film or, stranger yet, Cavell's openness to theological concerns. This book, the first on Cavell and theology, places Cavell in conversation with some of the philosophers most influential in contemporary theology (Alasdair MacIntyre, Martha Nussbaum, and John Rawls). It then takes up Cavell's relationship to Christian theology, shows how the figure of Christ appears repeatedly in his work, and illustrates how Cavell's account of skepticism and acknowledgment is a profoundly illuminating and transformative resource for theological discussions, not just of ecclesiology, but of sin, salvation, and the existence of God.

The fundamental problem of Rousseau's political philosophy is to find a form of association that protects the person and goods of each person without demanding from them a morally unacceptable sacrifice of autonomy. His solution to this problem, specified by a social contract, is the society of the general will: a free community of equals, whose members share a commitment to the common good, and in which each gives the law to him or herself. But how could it be that we accept a common authority and yet remain fully autonomous; and is such a society genuinely possible for human beings? Rousseau answers the first question by filling out the ideal of a free community of equals, regulated by the general will. He answers the second by showing that human beings can, appearances notwithstanding, live together in a free community of equals, motivated by the general will, and by describing how a free community of equals might work institutionally, as a form of democracy. At the heart of the argument is the idea that human beings are naturally good but corrupted by bad institutions. With institutions that advance the common good and secure each citizen's self-worth, people may acquire the requisite motivations. To this end, Rousseau favors direct-democratic lawmaking, and emphasizes the importance of strong communal solidarities. But the ideal of a free community of equals may be more robust — and more robustly attractive — than his proposals about direct democracy and communitarian ideas of solidarity might suggest.

This book mounts a critique of current health economics and provides a new way of looking at the economics of health and health care. It argues that health economics has been too dominated by the economics of health care and has largely ignored the impact of poverty, inequality, poor housing, and lack of education on health. It is suggested that some of the structural issues of economies, particularly the individualism of neo liberalism which is becoming more and more pervasive across the globe, need to be addressed in health economics. The book instead proposes a form of collective decision making through communitarianism, placing value on participation in public life and on institutions, such as health care. It is envisaged this form of decision making can be used at the local, national, or global levels. For the last, this would mean a major revamp of global institutions like the World Bank and the IMF. Examples of the impact of the new paradigm on health policy in general but also more specifically on priority setting and equity are included.

What is liberty, as opposed to licence, and why is it so important? When people pursue happiness, peace, and prosperity whilst living in society, they confront pervasive problems of knowledge, interest, and power. These problems are dealt with by ensuring the liberty of the people to pursue their own ends, but addressing these problems also requires that liberty be structured by certain rights and procedures associated with the classical liberal conception of justice and the rule of law. This book identifies the content of natural rights—several property, freedom of contract, first possession, restitution, and self defence—and explains how natural rights are distinct from natural law and why these abstract rights require a conventional rule of law to implement. Barnett discusses the practicality of restitution as an alternative to punishment in criminal justice and the constitutional principles that are needed to protect fundamental rights from enforcement error and abuse. After describing how a polycentric legal system would function, he concludes by considering communitarian objections and those based on retributive and distributive justice.