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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ang, I. (1991). Desperately seeking the audience. London: Routledge.
Barendt, E. (1998). Judging the media: Impartiality and broadcasting. The Political Quarterly, 69(B), 108–116.
Barron, J. (1967). Access to the press: A new first amendment right. Harvard Law Review, 80, 1641–1678.
Bentham, J. (1789/1995). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bohman, J. (2007). Beyond distributive justice and struggles for recognition: Freedom, democracy, and critical theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 6(3), 267–276.
Bonotti, M. (2015). Political liberalism, free speech and public reason. European Journal of Political Theory, 14(2), 180–208.
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.
Buchanan, A. (2000). Rawls’s law of peoples: Rules for the vanishes Westphalian people. Ethics, 110, 607–721.
Christians, C. (2007). Utilitarianism in media ethics and its discontents. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2–3), 113–131.
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.
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.
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.
Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Elliot, D. (2007). Getting Mill Right. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2&3), 100–112.
Estlund, D. (1998). Debate: Liberalism, equality and fraternity in Cohen’s critique of Rawls. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(1), 99–112.
Fabre, C., & Miller, D. (2003). Justice and culture: Rawls, Sen, Nussbaum and O’Neill. Political Studies Review, 1, 4–17.
Fenton, N., & Titley, G. (2015). Mourning and longing: Media studies learning to let go of liberal democracy. European Journal of Communication, 30, 554–570.
Fiss, O. (1996). The irony of free speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2003). The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 301–317.
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.
Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
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.
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.
Hamer, L., Jenkins, M., & Moore, B. (2013). Toward a cultural framework for dialogue about justice. Journal of Black Studies, 44(4), 356–375.
Held, D. (1987). Models of democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38–52.
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.
Iosifidis, P. (2005). The application of EC competition policy to the media industry. The International Journal on Media Management, 7(3&4), 103–111.
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.
Krasnow, E., & Goodman, J. (1998). The “public interest” standard: The search for the Holy Grail. Federal Communications Law Journal, 50(3), 606–635.
Levy, D. (1999). Europe’s digital revolution: Broadcasting regulation, the EU and the nation state. London: Routledge.
Liveruow, L., & Farb, S. (2003). Information and equity. Annual review of information science and technology, 37(1), 499–540.
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.
Okin, S. (1989). Justice, gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books.
Plotkin, A. (1996). The first amendment and democracy: The challenge of new technology. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 11(4), 236–245.
Pressman, S., & Summerfeld, G. (2000). The economic contributions of Amartya Sen. Review of Political Economy, 12(1), 89–113.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 223–251.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). Collected Papers (S. Freeman, Editor). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement (E. Kelly, Editor). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Sama, L., & Shoaf, V. (2002). Ethics on the Web: Applying moral decision-making to the new media. Journal of Business Ethics, 36, 93–103.
Sandel, J. (1984). Liberalism and its critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sen, A. (1990). Welfare, freedom and social choice: A reply. Recherches Économiques de Louvain/Louvain Economic Review, 56(3/4), 451–485.
Sen, A. (2004a). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.
Sen, A. (2004b). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(4), 315–356.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Splichal, S. (1999). Ownership regulation and socialisation: Rethinking the principles of democratic media. Javnost—The Public, 6(2), 5–24.
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.
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.
Toens, K. (2007). The dilemma of regress social justice and democracy in recent critical theory. European Journal of Political Theory, 6(2), 160–179.
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.
Weber, E. (2008). Dewey and Rawls on education. Human Studies, 31(4), 361–382.
Williamson, T. (2012). An emancipatory interpretation of property-owning democracy: Rawls, Wright, Sen, and politics. The Good Society, 21(1), 74–89.
Zelezny, J. (2010). Communications law: Liberties. Boston: Wadsworth.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41510-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41509-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41510-9
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)