当前位置:
X-MOL 学术
›
Social Philosophy and Policy
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
BOYCOTTS AND THE SOCIAL ENFORCEMENT OF JUSTICE
Social Philosophy and Policy ( IF 0.264 ) Pub Date : 2017-06-14 , DOI: 10.1017/s026505251700005x Linda Radzik
Social Philosophy and Policy ( IF 0.264 ) Pub Date : 2017-06-14 , DOI: 10.1017/s026505251700005x Linda Radzik
:This essay examines the ethics of boycotting as a social response to injustice or wrongdoing. The boycotts in question are collective actions in which private citizens withdraw from or avoid consumer or cultural interaction with parties perceived to be responsible for some transgression. Whether a particular boycott is justified depends, not only on the reasonableness of the underlying moral critique, but also on what the boycotters are doing in boycotting. The essay considers four possible interpretations of the kind of act in which boycotting consists: the avoidance of complicity, protest speech, social punishment, or social coercion. Each interpretation provides a plausible account of at least some cases of boycotting, yet each raises distinct challenges to justifying boycotting activities.
中文翻译:
抵制和正义的社会执法
:这篇文章将抵制作为对不公正或不法行为的社会反应进行了伦理审查。有问题的抵制是集体行动,其中私人公民退出或避免与被认为应对某些违法行为负责的各方进行消费者或文化互动。特定的抵制是否合理,不仅取决于潜在的道德批评的合理性,还取决于抵制者在抵制中所做的事情。本文考虑了对抵制行为的四种可能解释:避免共谋、抗议言论、社会惩罚或社会胁迫。每种解释都为至少某些抵制案例提供了合理的解释,但每种解释都对证明抵制活动的正当性提出了不同的挑战。
更新日期:2017-06-14
中文翻译:
抵制和正义的社会执法
:这篇文章将抵制作为对不公正或不法行为的社会反应进行了伦理审查。有问题的抵制是集体行动,其中私人公民退出或避免与被认为应对某些违法行为负责的各方进行消费者或文化互动。特定的抵制是否合理,不仅取决于潜在的道德批评的合理性,还取决于抵制者在抵制中所做的事情。本文考虑了对抵制行为的四种可能解释:避免共谋、抗议言论、社会惩罚或社会胁迫。每种解释都为至少某些抵制案例提供了合理的解释,但每种解释都对证明抵制活动的正当性提出了不同的挑战。