Name:
Vanderschraaf,_Reply_to_Critic ...
Size:
377.0Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript
Author
Vanderschraaf, PeterAffiliation
Univ Arizona, Dept Polit Econ & Moral Sci,Issue Date
2020-06-30Keywords
Justice as mutual advantageConvention
Monotone path solution
Vulnerability objection
Laws of humanity
Value domain
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
SPRINGERCitation
Vanderschraaf, P. Reply to critics. Philos Stud (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-020-01502-2Journal
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIESRights
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
I reply to commentaries by Justin Bruner, Robert Sugden and Gerald Gaus. My response to Bruner focuses on conventions of bargaining problems and arguments for characterizing the just conventions of these problems as monotone path solutions. My response to Sugden focuses on how the laws of humanity present in Hume's discussion of vulnerable individuals might be incorporated into my own proposed account of justice as mutual advantage. My response to Gaus focuses on whether or not my account of justice as mutual advantage can incorporate deep differences in values across subgroups of a larger society.Note
12 month embargo; published online: 30 June 2020ISSN
0031-8116EISSN
1573-0883Version
Final accepted manuscriptae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1007/s11098-020-01502-2
