Justice, Borders and the Cosmopolitan Ideal: A Reply to Two Critics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory (2005) Oxford University Press, Oxford. References to this book are inserted into the text. 2. Caney (2001), ‘Cosmopolitan justice and equalizing opportunities’, Metaphilosophy, vol. 32, nos. 1/2, pp. 113–134. 3. Miller (2005), ‘Against global egalitarianism’, Journal of Ethics, vol. 9, nos. 1–2, pp. 55–79. 4. Brock ‘Caney's Global Political Theory’, this issue, Section I. 5. Brock ‘Caney's Global Political Theory’, p. 243. 6. See ‘Cosmopolitan Justice and Equalizing Opportunities’, p. 121. See also Nussbaum, M. (2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and Sen, A. Development as Freedom Oxford University Press, Oxford. 7. See United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), (2006), Human Development Report 2006—Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 263ff. 8. This point is also made by D. Moellendorf in his defence of global equality of opportunity against Brock's (2006) objection in ‘Equality of Opportunity Globalized?’, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, vol. XIX, no. 2, pp. 309–310. See, more generally, his excellent discussion there (especially pp. 310–313). 9. Aristotle, (1986), Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, translated with an introduction by W. D. Ross and revised by J. L. Ackrill and J. G. Urmson, Book I section 3, pp. 2–3. 10. ‘Justice within Different Borders’, p. 263. 11. ‘Justice within Different Borders’, pp. 263–264. 12. See also Caney, (1999), ‘Nationality, distributive justice and the use of force’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 123–138, especially pp. 132–133. 13. ‘Justice within Different Borders’, pp. 264–266. 14. Barry B., (1995), Justice as Impartiality: A Treatise on Social Justice, vol. II, Clarendon, Oxford. 15. ‘Caney's Global Political Theory’, pp. 244–246. 16. ‘Caney's Global Political Theory’, p. 245. 17. ‘Caney's Global Political Theory’, p. 246. 18. ‘Caney's Global Political Theory’, p. 246. 19. For a powerful statement of this argument see Hillel Steiner ‘Impartiality, freedom and natural rights’, Political Studies, vol. XLIV, no. 2 (1996), pp. 311–313. 20. ‘Justice within Different Borders’, pp. 257–258. 21. I have, however, addressed this is Caney (2007), ‘Global poverty and human rights: the case for positive duties’ in Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What the Very Poor? ed. by T. Pogge, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 275–302. 22. ‘Justice within Different Borders’, pp. 260–262. 23. ‘Justice within Different Borders’, p. 258. 24. For these three arguments see ‘Justice within Different Borders’, pp. 258–259. 25. ‘Justice within Different Borders’, p. 259. 26. For more on this see Caney, (2006), ‘Cosmopolitanism, democracy and distributive justice’, The Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 31, pp. 29–63; and ‘Cosmopolitan justice and institutional design: an egalitarian liberal conception of global governance’, Social Theory and Practice, vol. 32, no 4, pp. 725–756. 27. ‘Justice within Different Borders’, pp. 256–257. 28. For a fuller development and defence of the cosmopolitan egalitarian ideal see Caney On Cosmopolitanism, Oxford University Press, Oxford (forthcoming).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it