skip to main content
Visitante
Meu Espaço
Minha Conta
Sair
Identificação
This feature requires javascript
Tags
Revistas Eletrônicas (eJournals)
Livros Eletrônicos (eBooks)
Bases de Dados
Bibliotecas USP
Ajuda
Ajuda
Idioma:
Inglês
Espanhol
Português
This feature required javascript
This feature requires javascript
Primo Search
Busca Geral
Busca Geral
Acervo Físico
Acervo Físico
Produção Intelectual da USP
Produção USP
Search For:
Clear Search Box
Search in:
Busca Geral
Or select another collection:
Search in:
Busca Geral
Busca Avançada
Busca por Índices
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Why Limitarianism Fails on its Own Premises – an Egalitarian Critique
Halldenius, Lena
Ethical theory and moral practice, 2022-11, Vol.25 (5), p.777-791
[Periódico revisado por pares]
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands
Texto completo disponível
Citações
Citado por
Exibir Online
Detalhes
Resenhas & Tags
Mais Opções
Nº de Citações
This feature requires javascript
Enviar para
Adicionar ao Meu Espaço
Remover do Meu Espaço
E-mail (máximo 30 registros por vez)
Imprimir
Link permanente
Referência
EasyBib
EndNote
RefWorks
del.icio.us
Exportar RIS
Exportar BibTeX
This feature requires javascript
Título:
Why Limitarianism Fails on its Own Premises – an Egalitarian Critique
Autor:
Halldenius, Lena
Assuntos:
Analysis
;
Decision making
;
Distributive justice
;
Economic equity
;
Economic inequality
;
Economic theory
;
Education
;
Egalitarianism
;
Equality
;
Ethics
;
Filosofi
;
Filosofi, etik och religion
;
Humaniora och konst
;
Humanities
;
Inequality
;
Justice
;
Justice and economics
;
Limitarianism
;
Ontology
;
Personal income
;
Philosophy
;
Philosophy of Medicine
;
Philosophy, Ethics and Religion
;
Political equality
;
Political Philosophy
;
Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
;
Wealth
É parte de:
Ethical theory and moral practice, 2022-11, Vol.25 (5), p.777-791
Descrição:
This article is a critical analysis of Ingrid Robeyns’ “economic limitarianism” (2017, 2019, 2022), the suggestion that there is a moral case against allowing people to be richer than they need to be in order to achieve full flourishing. Wealth above a certain “riches line” lacks value and should be capped at that level. Robeyns claims that limitarianism is justified as a partial theory of economic justice, since vast wealth is a threat to political equality and the revenue raised from taxing wealth can be used to meet urgent needs. She also claims that limitarianism is problem-driven philosophy and should be judged by its capacity to address problems in the world as it is. The argument in this article is that limitarianism fails on its own premises, both as partial theory of justice and as guide to decision-making. The arguments invoked in its favour as theory does not provide reasons to support it over other redistributive schemes. As guide to practical action, it runs counter to what empirical research reveals about how attitudes to economic inequality works in that people’s acceptance of inequality adjusts: the more unequal a society is, the more inequality is accepted as fair. By disregarding inequalities below the riches-line as well as the economic system that produces them, limitarianism has no tools for countering this adjustment and risks legitimating a politics of inequality. Anyone who shares Robeyns’ concerns about economic inequality have reason to be wary of limitarianism.
Editor:
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands
Idioma:
Inglês
Links
View record from Swedish Publication Index
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Voltar para lista de resultados
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.
Buscando por
em
scope:(USP_PRODUCAO),scope:(USP_EBOOKS),scope:("PRIMO"),scope:(USP),scope:(USP_EREVISTAS),scope:(USP_FISICO),primo_central_multiple_fe
Mostrar o que foi encontrado até o momento
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript