Abstract
This chapter asks what role limitarianism can play in theorizing justice between generations. Do intergenerational challenges give us additional reasons to embrace limitarianism? Taking economic limitarianism as a starting point, I argue that both the democratic argument and the argument from basic needs have considerable intergenerational traction, but the latter raises difficult questions for limitarians. I also argue that economic limitarianism cannot offer a full account of intergenerational justice, due to its focus on individual and monetary holdings. We could design a more comprehensive limitarianism in response to these worries, but only at the cost of the appeal and distinctiveness of limitarianism. The last section somewhat speculatively develops a Rawls-inspired account of intergenerational limitarianism which stays true to the focus on monetary wealth, but with clear environmental implications.
Funder
European Research Council
Reference38 articles.
1. Attas, Daniel. 2009. A Transgenerational Difference Principle. In: Gosseries, A. and L. Meyer (Eds). Intergenerational Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189–218.
2. Intergenerational Mobility in the Very Long Run: Florence 1427–2011;Barone, Guglielmo; Mocetti, Sauro;The Review of Economic Studies,2020
3. Casal, Paula. draft. Conservative and Conservationist Sufficiency. On file with author.
4. Christiano, Thomas. 2012. Money in Politics. In: David Estlund (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376692.013.0013
5. Intergenerational Wealth Mobility in England, 1858-2012: Surnames and Social Mobility;Clark, Gregory; Cummins, Neil;The Economic Journal,2014
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献