Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

14. Limitarismo y generaciones futuras

Chapter of: Tener Demasiado: Ensayos Filosóficos sobre el Limitarismo(pp. 401–434)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: Missing Long Abstract
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
Title14. Limitarismo y generaciones futuras
ContributorTim Meijers(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0354.14
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0354/chapters/10.11647/obp.0354.14
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
CopyrightTim Meijers
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2024-02-19
Long abstractEste capítulo plantea la pregunta de qué papel puede desempeñar el limitarismo en la teorización de la justicia entre generaciones. ¿Los retos intergeneracionales nos dan razones adicionales para adoptar el limitarismo? Tomando el limitarismo económico como punto de partida, argumento que tanto el argumento democrático como el argumento de las necesidades básicas tienen bastante fuerza intergeneracional, pero el segundo da pie a preguntas difíciles para los limitaristas. También argumento que el limitarismo económico no puede ofrecer una concepción completa de la justicia intergeneracional dado su enfoque en las posesiones individuales y monetarias. Podríamos diseñar un limitarismo más comprensivo en respuesta a estas preocupaciones, pero sólo a expensas del atractivo y las características distintivas del limitarismo. La última sección desarrolla, de manera un tanto especulativa, una concepción inspirada en Rawls del limitarismo intergeneracional que permanece fiel al enfoque en la riqueza monetaria, pero con implicaciones medioambientales claras.
Page rangepp. 401–434
Print length34 pages
LanguageSpanish (Translated_into)
Contributors

Tim Meijers

(author)
Assistant Professor of Moral and Political Philosophy at Leiden University
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0457-2044

Tim Meijers is Assistant Professor of moral and political philosophy at Leiden University. He is primarily interested in questions of intergenerational justice. He also thinks about issues in global justice, reproductive ethics and population ethics and has an interest in foundational questions in political philosophy. He is the recipient of an early career grant (VENI) from the Dutch Science Foundation. His research has appeared in journals such as Politics, Philosophy and Economics; Economics & Philosophy; CRISPP; Canadian Journal of Philosophy; Philosophy Compass; and Ethics & International Affairs.

References
  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. Barone, G., and Mocetti, S. 2021. Intergenerational mobility in the very long run: Florence 1427–2011, The Review of Economic Studies, 88(4), 1863–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdaa075
  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. 241–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195376692.013.0013
  5. Clark, Gregory and Cummins, Neil. 2015. Intergenerational wealth mobility in England, 1858–2012: Surnames and social mobility. The Economic Journal, 125(582), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12165
  6. Gaspart, Frederic., and Gosseries, Axel. 2007. Are generational savings unjust? Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X07073006
  7. Green, F. 2021. Ecological limits: Science, justice, policy, and the good life. Philosophy Compass, 16(6), , e12740, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12740
  8. Harel Ben-Shahar, Tammy. 2019. Limitarianism and relative thresholds. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3404687
  9. Herzog, Lisa. Forthcoming. Liberal Egalitarianism beyond Methodological Atomism. In: Ingrid Robeyns (Ed.). Pluralizing Political Philosophy: Economic and Ecological Inequalities in Global Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
  10. Heyward, Clare. 2008. Can the all-affected principle include future persons? Green deliberative democracy and the non-identity problem. Environmental Politics, 17(4), 625–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802193591
  11. Hickey, Colin. 2021. Climate change, distributive justice, and “pre‐institutional” limits on resource appropriation. European Journal of Philosophy, 29(1), 215–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12569
  12. Huseby, Robert. 2022. The limits of limitarianism. Journal of Political Philosophy, 3, 230–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12274
  13. Icardi, Elena. 2022. Perché limitare l’eccessiva ricchezza individuale? Ragioni e problemi del limitarianesimo. Biblioteca della libertà, LVII, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.23827/BDL_2022_1
  14. Icardi, Elena. 2023. A Neo-Republican Argument for Limitarianism. In: Ingrid Robeyns (Ed.). Having Too Much: Philosophical Essays on Limitarianism. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers (pp. 247–70).
  15. Koch, Max and Buch-Hansen. 2020. The IPE of degrowth and sustainable welfare. In: Vivares, E. (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook to Global Political Economy. Routledge: London, pp. 375–90.
  16. Kramm, Matthias and Robeyns, Ingrid. 2020. Limits to wealth in the history of Western philosophy. European Journal of Philosophy, 28(4), 954–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12535
  17. Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. 2012. ‘Equality of What?’ and Intergenerational Justice. Ethical Perspectives, 19(3), 501. https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.19.3.2172301
  18. Meijers, Tim. 2017. Citizens in appropriate numbers: evaluating five claims about justice and population size. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 47(2–3), 246–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1285166
  19. Meijers, Tim. 2018. Justice Between Generations. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.233
  20. Neuhäuser, Christian. 2018. Reichtum als moralisches Problem. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
  21. Nielsen, Lasse, and Axelsen, David. 2022. Envy, Levelling-Down, and Harrison Bergeron Defending Limitarianism from Three Common Objections. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 25, 737–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-022-10319-3
  22. Oxfam. 2020. Confronting Carbon Inequality. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/confronting-carbon-inequality
  23. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
  24. Rawls, John. 2012. Teoría de la justicia. Traducido por María Dolores González. Distrito Federal: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  25. Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  26. Rawls, J. (2002). La justicia como equidad. Una reformulación. Editado por Erin Kelly. Barcelona: Paidós.
  27. Rawls, John and Van Parijs, Philippe. 2003. Three Letters on The Law of Peoples and the European Union. Revue de philosophie économique, 7, 7–20.
  28. Rawls, John, Philippe van Parijs, Mario Josue Cunningham Matamoros (trad.), y Mario Solís Umaña (trad.). 2023. “Tres Cartas Sobre El Derecho De Gentes Y La Unión Europea”. Revista De Filosofía De La Universidad De Costa Rica 62 (163):), 347–56. https://doi.org/10.15517/revfil.2023.55121.
  29. Reich, Rob. 2018. Just Giving. Why Philanthropy Is Failing Democracy and How It Can Do Better. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  30. Robeyns, Ingrid. 2017. Having too much. In: Jack Knight & Melissa Schwartzberg (Eds.). Wealth - Yearbook of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy. New York: New York University Press, pp. 1–44.
  31. Robeyns, Ingrid. 2019. What, If Anything, Is Wrong with Extreme Wealth? Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 20, 251–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2019.1633734
  32. Robeyns, Ingrid. 2022. Why Limitarianism? Journal of Political Philosophy, 30(2), 249–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12275
  33. Scheffler, Samuel. 2013. Death and the Afterlife. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  34. Shue, Henry. 2015. Historical Responsibility, Harm Prohibition, and Preservation Requirement: Core Practical Convergence on Climate Change. Moral Philosophy and Politics (2) 1, 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2013-0009
  35. Shue, Henry. 1993. Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions. Law and Policy, 15, 39- 59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1993.tb00093.x
  36. Timmer, Dick. 2019. Defending the Democratic Argument to Limitarianism: A Reply to Volacu and Dumitru, Philosophia, 47, 1331–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-018-0030-6
  37. Timmer, Dick. 2021a. Limitarianism: pattern, principle, or presumption? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38, 760–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12502
  38. Timmer, Dick. 2021b. Thresholds in distributive justice. Utilitas, 33, 422–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820821000194
  39. Timmer, Dick. 2023. Presumptive Limitarianism: A Reply to Robert Huseby. In: Ingrid Robeyns (Ed.). Having Too Much: Philosophical Essays on Limitarianism. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers (pp. 129–50).
  40. Valente, Manuel. 2022. Proportionality without Inequality: Defending Lifetime Political Equality through Storable Votes. Res Publica 28, 715–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-022-09547-2
  41. Van Bavel, Bas, Curtis, Daniel, and Soens, Tim. 2018. Economic inequality and institutional adaptation in response to flood hazards. Ecology and Society, 23(4), 30–47. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss4/art30/
  42. Zwarthoed, Danielle. 2019. Autonomy-based reasons for limitarianism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21, 1181–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9958-7