nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

3. Competing Theories of Justice

verfasst von : Amit M. Schejter, Noam Tirosh

Erschienen in: A Justice-Based Approach for New Media Policy

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We describe three philosophies of justice: (a) the utilitarian, which says that decisions should be made with the aim of producing the greatest good for the greatest number; (b) John Rawls’s theory of justice, which contends that social and economic inequalities should be rearranged so that they provide the greatest advantage to the least advantaged; and (c) Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which focuses on a people’s actual ability to make use of the opportunities available to them. Utilitarian foundations support mostly negative justifications for freedom of expression, the basic substantive right that humans should justly enjoy. Rawlsian philosophy ensures a minimal level of free expression. The capability approach focuses on people’s ability to put speech to use in ways they themselves see fit.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel The Novelty and Utility in New Media

Nächstes Kapitel Media Policy and Theories of Justice

Ang, I. (1991). Desperately seeking the audience. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Barendt, E. (1998). Judging the media: Impartiality and broadcasting. The Political Quarterly, 69(B), 108–116.CrossRef

Barron, J. (1967). Access to the press: A new first amendment right. Harvard Law Review, 80, 1641–1678.CrossRef

Bentham, J. (1789/1995). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bohman, J. (2007). Beyond distributive justice and struggles for recognition: Freedom, democracy, and critical theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 6(3), 267–276.CrossRef

Bonotti, M. (2015). Political liberalism, free speech and public reason. European Journal of Political Theory, 14(2), 180–208.CrossRef

Brettschneider, C. (2010). When the state speaks, what should it say? The dilemmas of freedom of expression and democratic persuasion. Perspectives on Politics, 8(4), 1005–1019.CrossRef

Buchanan, A. (2000). Rawls’s law of peoples: Rules for the vanishes Westphalian people. Ethics, 110, 607–721.CrossRef

Christians, C. (2007). Utilitarianism in media ethics and its discontents. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2–3), 113–131.CrossRef

Copps, M. (2003). Statement re: 2002 biennial regulatory review—Review of the commission’s broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to section 202 of the telecommunications act of 1996. Available at: http://www.cavellmertz.com/uploads/N_31_coppsDOC-235047A9.pdf

Daniels, N. (2002). Democratic equality: Rawls’s complex egalitarianism. In S. Freeman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Rawls (pp. 241–276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Dawood, Y. (2013). Democracy and the freedom of speech: Rethinking the conflict between liberty and equality. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, XXVI(2), 293–311.

Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2000). Growth is good for the poor. World Bank: Washington, DC, USA. Can be accessed at doi:10.1596/1813-9450–2587.

Dryzek, J. S., & List, C. (2003). Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation. British Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 1–28.CrossRef

Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Elliot, D. (2007). Getting Mill Right. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2&3), 100–112.CrossRef

Estlund, D. (1998). Debate: Liberalism, equality and fraternity in Cohen’s critique of Rawls. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(1), 99–112.CrossRef

Fabre, C., & Miller, D. (2003). Justice and culture: Rawls, Sen, Nussbaum and O’Neill. Political Studies Review, 1, 4–17.CrossRef

Fenton, N., & Titley, G. (2015). Mourning and longing: Media studies learning to let go of liberal democracy. European Journal of Communication, 30, 554–570.CrossRef

Fiss, O. (1996). The irony of free speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fukuda-Parr, S. (2003). The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 301–317.CrossRef

Garnham, N. (1999). Amartya Sen’s “capabilities” approach to the evaluation of welfare: Its application to communications. In A. Calabrese & J.-C. Brugleman (Eds.), Communication, citizenship and social policy (pp. 113–124). Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRef

Gouinlock, J. (1993). Dewey and contemporary moral philosophy. In J. Stuhr (Ed.), Philosophy and the reconstruction of culture (pp. 79–96). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Guttman, A. (2002). Rawls on the relationship between liberalism and democracy. In S. Freeman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Rawls (pp. 168–199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Hamer, L., Jenkins, M., & Moore, B. (2013). Toward a cultural framework for dialogue about justice. Journal of Black Studies, 44(4), 356–375.CrossRef

Held, D. (1987). Models of democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52.CrossRef

Hutchins, R. M. (1947). A free and responsible press: A general report on mass communication: Newspapers, radio, motion pictures, magazines, and books. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Iosifidis, P. (2005). The application of EC competition policy to the media industry. The International Journal on Media Management, 7(3&4), 103–111.CrossRef

Jay, R. (1994[1984]). Democracy. In: R. Eccleshall, V. Geoghegan, J. Richard, M. Kenny, L. Mackenzie, & R. Wilford (Eds.), Political ideologies—An introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge: London.

Krasnow, E., & Goodman, J. (1998). The “public interest” standard: The search for the Holy Grail. Federal Communications Law Journal, 50(3), 606–635.

Levy, D. (1999). Europe’s digital revolution: Broadcasting regulation, the EU and the nation state. London: Routledge.CrossRef

Liveruow, L., & Farb, S. (2003). Information and equity. Annual review of information science and technology, 37(1), 499–540.

Locke. (1690). Second treatise of government. Can be accessed at: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

Mill, J. (1863). Utilitarianism (Alex Catalogue of Electronic Texts). Available at: http://infomotions.com/etexts/philosophy/1800-1899/mill-utilitarianism-218.htm

Nussbaum, H. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.CrossRef

Okin, S. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.

Plotkin, A. (1996). The first amendment and democracy: The challenge of new technology. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 11(4), 236–245.CrossRef

Pressman, S., & Summerfeld, G. (2000). The economic contributions of Amartya Sen. Review of Political Economy, 12(1), 89–113.CrossRef

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 223–251.

Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rawls, J. (1999). Collected Papers (S. Freeman, Editor). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement (E. Kelly, Editor). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Sama, L., & Shoaf, V. (2002). Ethics on the Web: Applying moral decision-making to the new media. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 93–103.CrossRef

Sandel, J. (1984). Liberalism and its critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher.

Schejter, A., & Tirosh, N. (2014). New media policy: The redistribution of voice. In Y. Liu & R. Picard (Eds.), Policy and marketing strategies for digital media (pp. 73–86). London: Routledge.

Schejter, A., & Yemini, M. (2007). ‘Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue’: Network neutrality, the first amendment and John Rawls’ theory of justice. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 14, 137–174.

Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. M. McMurring (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values (Vol. I, pp. 197–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sen, A. (1989/2003). Development as capability expansion. In S. Fukuda-Parr, & A. K. Shiva Kumar (Eds.), Readings in human development (pp. 3–16). New Delhi: University Press.

Sen, A. (1990). Welfare, freedom and social choice: A reply. Recherches Économiques de Louvain/Louvain Economic Review, 56(3/4), 451–485.

Sen, A. (2004a). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.CrossRef

Sen, A. (2004b). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(4), 315–356.CrossRef

Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Splichal, S. (1999). Ownership regulation and socialisation: Rethinking the principles of democratic media. Javnost—The Public, 6(2), 5–24.CrossRef

Strossen, N. (1995). Hate speech and pornography: Do we have to choose between freedom of speech and equality? Case Western Reserve Law Review, 46, 449–478.

Stucke, M. (2009). Concentrated media is something we can’t ignore: A response to speaker Pelosi (University of Tennessee legal studies research paper No. 58). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract1⁄41369763 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.1369763.

Sunstein, C. (1997). Free markets and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Toens, K. (2007). The dilemma of regress social justice and democracy in recent critical theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 6(2), 160–179.CrossRef

Van Dijk, J. (1996). Models of democracy: Behind the design and use of new media in politics. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 6(2). Available at: http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/006/2/00629.HTML

Van Parijs, P. (2002). Difference principles. In S. Freeman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Rawls (pp. 200–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Weber, E. (2008). Dewey and Rawls on education. Human Studies, 31(4), 361–382.CrossRef

Williamson, T. (2012). An emancipatory interpretation of property-owning democracy: Rawls, Wright, Sen, and politics. The Good Society, 21(1), 74–89.CrossRef

Zelezny, J. (2010). Communications law: Liberties. Boston: Wadsworth.

Titel: Competing Theories of Justice
verfasst von: Amit M. Schejter
Noam Tirosh
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: A Justice-Based Approach for New Media Policy
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41509-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-41510-9

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41510-9_3