Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T12:35:14.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coercion, Justification, and Inequality: Defending Global Egalitarianism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2015

Simon Caney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Symposium: Justice and Foreign Policy
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , Fall 2015 , pp. 277 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 Michael Blake, Justice and Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). Future references to this work are inserted into the text.

2 In his illuminating contribution to this roundtable, Pablo Gilabert also notes both Blake's equivocation between what I have termed (C2) and (C3) and the failure of his arguments to yield (C3).

3 See G. A. Cohen's discussion of a certain kind of objection to utilitarianism (and in particular his discussion of “Objector B”) in his Rescuing Justice and Equality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008), pp. 264–66.

4 This point is one that has often been made against Blake's earliest work on coercion (“Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 30, no. 3 (2001), pp. 257–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar). See, for example, Caney, , “Global Distributive Justice and the State,” Political Studies 56, no. 3 (2008), pp. 502–503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilabert, From Global Poverty to Global Equality: A Philosophical Exploration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 172; and Moellendorf, Darrel, “Equal Respect and Global Egalitarianism,” Social Theory and Practice 32, no. 4 (2006), p. 606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).

6 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Revised Ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 182, 207, 267, 249, and 303.

7 Sangiovanni, Andrea, “Global Justice, Reciprocity, and the State,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35, no. 1 (2007), pp. 10–11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 As I have argued elsewhere, the same point applies to Sangiovanni's critique of global egalitarianism: See Caney, , “Humanity, Associations, and Global Justice: In Defence of Humanity-Centred Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism,” Monist 94, no. 4 (2011), pp. 516–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The point goes back to Shue, Henry, “The Burdens of Justice,” Journal of Philosophy 80, no. 10 (1983), pp. 603–606 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.