Mei, Todd (2014) Are Reasons Enough? Sen and Ricoeur on the Idea of Impartiality. Dialogue, 53 (02). pp. 243-270. ISSN 0012-2173. E-ISSN 1759-0949. (doi:10.1017/S0012217314000018) (KAR id:51185)
PDF
Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English |
|
Download this file (PDF/335kB) |
|
Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader | |
Official URL: http://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217314000018 |
Abstract
Amartya Sen argues that a conception of impartiality built upon “trans-positional objectivity” provides a potential remedy to conflicts of distributive justice by securing the most “reasonable reasons” in a debate. This article undertakes a critical analysis of Sen’s theory by contrasting it with Paul Ricoeur’s claim that impartiality is a normative concept and therefore that the demand faced within the arena of competing distributive claims is not one of providing the most reasonable reasons but of exposing and understanding the role of convictions that underwrite normative frameworks, or ethical orders.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
DOI/Identification number: | 10.1017/S0012217314000018 |
Subjects: | B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion |
Divisions: | Divisions > Division of Arts and Humanities > School of Culture and Languages |
Depositing User: | Todd Mei |
Date Deposited: | 22 Oct 2015 09:40 UTC |
Last Modified: | 05 Nov 2024 10:37 UTC |
Resource URI: | https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/51185 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes) |
- Link to SensusAccess
- Export to:
- RefWorks
- EPrints3 XML
- BibTeX
- CSV
- Depositors only (login required):