Love and justice: a paradox?
Three claims about love and justice cannot be simultaneously true and therefore entail a paradox: (1) Love is a matter of justice. (2) There cannot be a duty to love. (3) All matters of justice are matters of duty. The first claim is more controversial. To defend it, I show why the extent to which w...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión aceptada para publicación |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2017 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| Repositorio: | Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/34278 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10230/34278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1319656 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Distributive justice Love Care Metric of justice Duty to love Feasibility |
| id |
ES_c1cdeec3f3bc4c924ca046614aa4d9ff |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/34278 |
| network_acronym_str |
ES |
| network_name_str |
España |
| repository_id_str |
|
| spelling |
Love and justice: a paradox?Gheaus, AncaDistributive justiceLoveCareMetric of justiceDuty to loveFeasibilityThree claims about love and justice cannot be simultaneously true and therefore entail a paradox: (1) Love is a matter of justice. (2) There cannot be a duty to love. (3) All matters of justice are matters of duty. The first claim is more controversial. To defend it, I show why the extent to which we enjoy the good of love is relevant to distributive justice. To defend (2) I explain the empirical, conceptual and axiological arguments in its favour. Although (3) is the most generally endorsed claim of the three, I conclude we should reject it in order to avoid the paradox.This project has received funding from the Ramon y Cajal Programme from the Spanish Government and from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme (Grant Agreement Number: 648610).Taylor & Francis (Routledge)20182017info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10230/34278http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1319656reponame:Repositorio Digital de la UPFinstname:Universitat Pompeu FabraInglésCanadian Journal of Philosophy. 2017;47(6):739-59info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/648610© Taylor & Francis. This is an electronic version of an article published in "Gheaus A. Love and justice: a paradox? Can J Philos. Forthcoming 2017". Canadian Journal of Philosophy is available online at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00455091.2017.1319656.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/342782026-06-12T07:21:37Z |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Love and justice: a paradox? |
| title |
Love and justice: a paradox? |
| spellingShingle |
Love and justice: a paradox? Gheaus, Anca Distributive justice Love Care Metric of justice Duty to love Feasibility |
| title_short |
Love and justice: a paradox? |
| title_full |
Love and justice: a paradox? |
| title_fullStr |
Love and justice: a paradox? |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Love and justice: a paradox? |
| title_sort |
Love and justice: a paradox? |
| dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Gheaus, Anca |
| author |
Gheaus, Anca |
| author_facet |
Gheaus, Anca |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Distributive justice Love Care Metric of justice Duty to love Feasibility |
| topic |
Distributive justice Love Care Metric of justice Duty to love Feasibility |
| description |
Three claims about love and justice cannot be simultaneously true and therefore entail a paradox: (1) Love is a matter of justice. (2) There cannot be a duty to love. (3) All matters of justice are matters of duty. The first claim is more controversial. To defend it, I show why the extent to which we enjoy the good of love is relevant to distributive justice. To defend (2) I explain the empirical, conceptual and axiological arguments in its favour. Although (3) is the most generally endorsed claim of the three, I conclude we should reject it in order to avoid the paradox. |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017 2018 |
| dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
acceptedVersion |
| dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10230/34278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1319656 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10230/34278 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1319656 |
| dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
Inglés |
| language_invalid_str_mv |
Inglés |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 2017;47(6):739-59 info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/648610 |
| dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Taylor & Francis (Routledge) |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Taylor & Francis (Routledge) |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositorio Digital de la UPF instname:Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| instname_str |
Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| reponame_str |
Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| collection |
Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
|
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
| _version_ |
1869418590258593792 |
| score |
15,811543 |