Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Competing Theories of Justice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover A Justice-Based Approach for New Media Policy

  • 255 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Amit M. Schejter & Noam Tirosh

  2. Institute for Information Policy, College of Communications, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Amit M. Schejter

Authors
  1. Amit M. Schejter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noam Tirosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schejter, A.M., Tirosh, N. (2016). Competing Theories of Justice. In: A Justice-Based Approach for New Media Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41510-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation