Politics of Vulnerability: Freedom, Justice, and the Public/Private Distinction

  • Mark Coeckelbergh
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 12)

Abstract

There are several ways to understand the idea of a ‘politics of vulnerability’, each of which raises many questions at various levels of analysis.

Keywords

Social Position Human Dignity Distributive Justice Social Vulnerability Difference Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Trans. M. Ritter. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Bostrom, Nick. 2005. In defence of posthuman dignity. Bioethics 19(3): 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2009. Distributive justice and cooperation in a world of humans and non-humans: A contractarian argument for drawing non-humans into the sphere of justice. Res Publica 15(1): 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2011. Human development or human enhancement? A methodological reflection on capabilities and the evaluation of information technologies. Ethics and Information Technology 13(2): 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2012. Growing moral relations: Critique of moral status ascription. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diamond, Larry. 2010. Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy 21(3): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donaldson, Sue, and Will Kymlicka. 2011. Zoopolis: A political theory of animal rights. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin, Ronald. 2002. Sovereign virtue revisited. Ethics 113: 106–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrelly, Colin. 2004. The genetic difference principle. The American Journal of Bioethics 4(2): W21–W28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrelly, Colin. 2005. Justice in the genetically transformed society. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15(1): 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, Michel. 1988. Technologies of the self. In Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault, ed. L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P.H. Hutton. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hayek, Friedrich A. 1976. Law, legislation and liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy, vol. 2. The mirage of social justice. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern. Trans. C. Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Latour, Bruno. 2004. Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Trans. C. Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leiter, Brian. 2010. Cleaning cyber-cesspools: Google and free speech. In The offensive internet: Privacy, speech and reputation, ed. S. Levmore and M.C. Nussbaum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Levmore, Saul, and Martha C. Nussbaum (eds.). 2010. The offensive internet: Privacy, speech and reputation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lewontin, Richard. 2001. The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lindsay, Ronald A. 2005. Enhancements and justice: Problems in determining the requirements of justice in a genetically transformed society. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15(1): 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moss, Lenny. 2003. What genes can’t do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mouffe, Chantal. 2000. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism, Political science series 72. Vienna: Institute of Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  24. Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. London/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Nussbaum, Martha. 2011. Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nussbaum, Martha, and Amartya Sen. 1993. The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Salvi, Maurizio. 2002. Genetics’ dreams in the post genomics era. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5: 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality re-examined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sen, Amartya. 1995. Equality of what? In Equal freedom, ed. S. Darwall, 307–330. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Coeckelbergh
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations