HIGHLIGHTS
SUMMARY
The choice to focus on the two Rawlsian moral powers rests on their marked "thinness" and flexibility: all individuals possess them regardless of their conception of the good and their legal status (e_g, regardless of whether they are legal citizens or resident non-citizens).5 These aspects (i.e., thinness and flexibility) also afford the authors key theoretical flexibility: 3 That is, the membership conditions of a given category contextually vary based on a wide range of diverse factors, e_g, social structures, overarching norms, and specific epistemic, social, and pragmatic goals (see Borghini et_al . . .
If you want to have access to all the content you need to log in!
Thanks :)
If you don't have an account, you can create one here.