John Paul Hadjirol Article Review (Ethics)

John Paul E.
Hadjirol Block A- BSCRIM 2nd Year
Article Review
Structural Injustice
Article Info
Philosophia (2019) 47:1185-1196 DOI 10.1007/s11406-018-0025-3 Received:

28 August 2018 / Revised: 13 September 2018 / Accepted: 18 September 2018
/Published online: 2 October 2018 # Springer Nature B.V. 2018
Introduction
Structural Injustice is a kind of moral wrong distinct from the wrongful action
of an individual agent or the repressive policies of a state. Based to John
Rawls, each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the
welfare of society as a whole cannot override. Structural injustice has become a
familiar concept in contemporary political theory. Many problems are now
referred to as instances of structural injustice notably homelessness and
sweatshops, but also racism, sexism, colonialism, climate change, and many
other injustices that are embedded in social, political, and economic
structures. This paper intends to do two things. First, it will analyze the
Rawlsian theory of justice and question its assumptions. Second this paper
also will examine the reality of prejudice and discrimination. It will discuss the
argued that Rawls’s theory focuses on the chances of the individual in terms of
how the same can benefit from society’s resources but neglects the reality of
cultural differences that affect one’s life.
Methodology
Explaining the Rawlsian Starting point is that individuals are equals in a

society that itself is a system of fair cooperation. The original position is to
designed to be fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our
reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. Rawl’s first principle
confirms widespread convictions about the importance of equal basic rights
and liberties. The principles chosen in his theory of justice, Rawls insists,
reflect the moral equality of persons as the foundation in the establishment of
the just and democratic state. In designing his own version of the social
contract, is suspending the assumptions that people have. Rawls asking what
a fair arrangement is about. Individuals would never desire to become part of
social cooperation should they know in advance how their lives might turn out
in the natural lottery. The purpose of the veil of ignorance is to make sure that
bargaining advantages are removed. In instance, consider two young persons
who possess similar qualifications in applying for the same job. In situation
which the prevailing pattern of political accommodation in society unjustly
favors one person over the other, people achieve things in life even if they do
not deserve the same. An equal starting point intends to erase the wrong belief
that one needs to be born to a position of privilege in order to succeed in life.
Rawls sees political philosophy as fulfilling at least four roles in a society’s

public culture. The first role is practical philosophy can propose grounds for
reasoned agreement when sharp political divisions threaten to lead to violent
conflict. A second role of political philosophy is to help citizens to orient
themselves within their own social world. A third role is to probe the limits of
political possibility. Political philosophy must describe workable political
arrangements that can gain support from real people. A fourth role of political
philosophy is reconciliation. Philosophy can show that human life is not simply
domination and cruelty, prejudice, folly and corruption, but at least in some
ways, it is better that it has become as it is.
Conclusions
Structural Injustice is not limited to the domestic sphere, it can cross borders.
Global structural injustice is sweatshop labor. Injustice in the global garment
industry is now familiar, excessive working hours, poverty wages, physical
abuse, and dangerous working conditions. Young acknowledges that certain
agents are morally and legally responsible for these harms, factory owners and
managers are legally responsible for human rights violations, and states that
encourage sweatshops are morally responsible. Based on my understanding
the term structural injustice appeared in Young’s 1990. In exists when social
processes put large groups of persons under systematic threat of domination or
domination or deprivation of the means to develop and exercise their
capacities, at the same time that these processes enable others to dominate or
to have a wide range of opportunities for developing and exercising capacities
available to them. There are several reasons why young want to move away
from the liability model with regards to structural injustice. The liability model
is isolating holding specific agents liable for particular wrongdoings
In this way of breaking down responsibility has been hotly debated, raising a
number of objections. First are the objection focuses on the lack of blame in
young’s analysis. Second is identified the free pass objection in foreword to
Responsibility for Justice. Well, People get a free pass indefinitely, since no
task ever goes onto the debit or guilt side of their ledger, and the new task
always lies ahead of them. Third, is how political responsibility generated.
Young took the distinction between moral and political responsibility. But
Young did not want to tie political responsibility to citizenship, mere
membership of a political community is not enough political responsibility
implies doing or not doing something. Fourth, is the most controversial aspect
of Young’s social connection model of responsibility is that includes the victims
of structural injustice. Young thinks that the victims of structural injustices,
like sweatshop labor or homelessness, share political responsibility to
collectively organize to overcome it.
Perhaps one of the greatest indicators of the growing importance of structural

injustice theory, is its reach beyond political theory. Structural injustice theory
is being used in bioethics and public health. In any field that is concerned with
structural inequalities, disadvantage or oppression, can utilize structural
injustice theory. As the approach develops, it will likely reach even further. In
particular, there is the potential for a large literature on the covid-19 pandemic
and structural injustice, given its disproportionate effects on structurally
disadvantaged groups.
References
Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of oppression and the development of a social

theory of disability. Disability,
Handicap and Society, 2(1), 5–17.
Barry, B. (1995). Justice as impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Cohen, J. (2004). The importance of philosophy: reflections on John Rawls.

South African Journal of
Philosophy, 23, 2.
Collste, G. (2015). Global rectificatory justice. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Galston, W. (1980). Justice and the human good. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kittay, E. F. (1999). Love’s labor. New York: Routledge.
Kittay, E. F. (2001). When caring is just and justice is caring: justice and
mental retardation. Public Culture,
13(3), 557–579.
Kymlicka, W. (2007). Contemporary political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.
Reiman, J. (2012). The structure of structural injustice: thoughts on Iris

Marion Young’s Responsibility for
Justice. Social Theory and Practice, 38, 738–751.
Schaefer, D. (1979). Justice or tyranny. New York: National University

Publications.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.
Young, I. M. (2005). Throwing like a girl. In On female bodily experience.

Oxford: Oxford University.
Young, I. M. (2007). Structural injustice and the politics of difference. In A. S.

Laden & D. O. Cambridge
(Eds.), Multiculturalism and political theory. Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
John Paul E. Hadjirol Block A- BSCRIM 2nd Year
Article Review
Recognitive and Redistributive claims in COVID-19 Outbreak
Article Info
Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 30(4) (May 2020)
Introduction
an outbreak of a mysterious pneumonia characterized by fever, dry cough, and

fatigue, and occasional gastrointestinal symptoms happened in a seafood
wholesale wet market, the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, in Wuhan,
Hubei, China.1 The initial outbreak was reported in the market in December
2019 and involved about 66% of the staff there. The market was shut down on
January 1, 2020, after the announcement of an epidemiologic alert by the local
health authority on December 31, 2019. However, in the following month
(January) thousands of people in China, including many provinces (such as
Hubei, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Henan, Hunan, etc.) and cities (Beijing and
Shanghai) were attacked by the rampant spreading of the
disease.2 Furthermore, the disease traveled to other countries, such as
Thailand, Japan, Republic of Korea, Viet Nam, Germany, United States, and
Singapore. The first case reported in our country was on January 21, 2019. As
of February 6, 2020, a total of 28,276 confirmed cases with 565 deaths globally
were documented by WHO, involving at least 25 countries. 3 The pathogen of
the outbreak was later identified as a novel beta-coronavirus, named 2019
novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) and recalled to our mind the terrible memory of
the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-2003, caused by another beta-
coronavirus) that occurred 17 years ago. The intention of this paper is to
explore and assess the two prevailing paradigms (“awa” at “tulong” and
“pagtutlungan” or “bayanihan”) in responding to the needs of persons
especially the poor that are the usual victims of disasters in a country or
society. The paper starts with the basic definition of a person and what
constitutes personhood. The paper then argues that the different engagements
of aid agencies to the poor have their own built-in assumptions about the
personhood of the poor.
This paper will further argue that in disaster response such as in COVID-19,
recognition of the inherent worth of the persons regardless of social status is
an imperative while working on the redistribution of goods and other economic
benefits to appease the cry of the poor during the COVID-19 crisis and
empower them to take charge of their own destiny. While recognitive and
redistributive justice can be considered as separate, they are complementary
approaches to solving the problems of injustices and inequalities that for so
long had been afflicting the poor in the Philippines.
Methodology
In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a

pandemic, caused by the novel SARS-COV 2 virus. Following the call from the
WHO to immediately assess available data to learn what care approaches are
most effective and evaluate the effects of therapies, this collection aims to
report on original peer reviewed research articles in methodological approaches
to medical research related to COVID-19. In giving Love, Respect and Solidarity
each person will develop his identity and to contribute something to the
society, a person needs recognition of who he is and showing affection an equal
member of a society endowed with equal rights and liberties. In short, we must
be recognized as a full citizen of the society. This struggle for recognition is not
only political, but basically moral. In this situation that all people face the
Covid-19 Pandemic, this kind of attitudes must be seen and will continue to
maintain our society peace and organize. Especially in the coming tragedies, we
need to unite, love and understand each other more. We shouldn’t be missing
up; we should be working together.
Conclusions
Covid-19 was not a black swan event. It may also constitute a dress rehearsal
for a far worse pandemic, which could come at any time. We must prepare for a
world where pandemics are more frequent and increasingly dangerous.
Preventing them, and never again allowing the human costs and economic
damage that we have seen in the current crisis, must be a central obligation of
national ang global governance. In this COVID-19 pandemic, social distance is
one of the keys to protecting ourselves. In this information age, public health
awareness is key to minimize casualties, and librarian and information
professional can play vital role to disseminate the information with health care
works, society, and communities. Maintaining social distance is important
during the lockdown phase. This information channels play a vital role
informing and updating public health information to the general public health
care professionals. The corona virus disease continues to spread across the
world following a trajectory that is difficult to predict. The health, humanitarian
and socio-economic policies adopted by countries will determine the speed and
strength of the recovery. To manage or overcome the pandemic situation is to
do things that give you back the control of your own life. Dedicate time to
activities that improve your mood. That can be listening to music, a film, a
good book, a hobby you haven’t had time for before. Be proactive because this
attitude gives you the power and control of the uncertain situation.
References
B. Brecher, Rational Rationing?, Clinical Ethics 3 (2), 2008: 53-54.

Daniel Callahan, Must We Ration Health Care for the Elderly?,
Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (1), 2012:10-16.
Drew Carter, Jason Gordon & Amber M. Watt, Competing
Principles for Allocating Health Care Resources, Journal of
Medicine and Philosophy 41 (5):558-583 (2016)
Jessica Price, Agnes Binagwaho,, “From medical rationing to
rationalizing the use of human resources for AIDS care and
treatment in Africa: A case for task shifting”, April 2010,
Developing World Bioethics 10(2):99-103,
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2010.00281.x
Philip M. Rosoff, “Who should ration?” AMA J
Ethics. 2017;19(2):164-173. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.ecas4-1702.
S. Brauer, Age Rationing and Prudential Lifespan Account in
Norman Daniels' Just Health, Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (1),
2009:27-31.
William R. Smith, The Many Uses of Legitimacy in Medical Ethics,
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):135-140. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.fred1-1702.
Winkler E., “Rationalization, rationing, prioritization:
terminology and ethical approaches to the allocation of limited
resources in hematology/oncology”, Onkologie, 2011; 34 Suppl
1:2-5. doi: 10.1159/000323063. Epub 2011 Jan 17.

John Paul Hadjirol Article Review (Ethics)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Paul Hadjirol Article Review (Ethics)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Paul Hadjirol Article Review (Ethics)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Paul E.

Hadjirol Block A- BSCRIM 2nd Year

Philosophia (2019) 47:1185-1196 DOI 10.1007/s11406-018-0025-3 Received:

Explaining the Rawlsian Starting point is that individuals are equals in a

Rawls sees political philosophy as fulfilling at least four roles in a society’s

Perhaps one of the greatest indicators of the growing importance of structural

Abberley, P. (1987). The concept of oppression and the development of a social

Handicap and Society, 2(1), 5–17.

Barry, B. (1995). Justice as impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barry, B. (2001). Culture and equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cohen, J. (2004). The importance of philosophy: reflections on John Rawls.

Collste, G. (2015). Global rectificatory justice. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Kittay, E. F. (1999). Love’s labor. New York: Routledge.

Kymlicka, W. (2007). Contemporary political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford

Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University

Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Harvard

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard

Reiman, J. (2012). The structure of structural injustice: thoughts on Iris

Justice. Social Theory and Practice, 38, 738–751.

Schaefer, D. (1979). Justice or tyranny. New York: National University

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton

Young, I. M. (2005). Throwing like a girl. In On female bodily experience.

Young, I. M. (2007). Structural injustice and the politics of difference. In A. S.

an outbreak of a mysterious pneumonia characterized by fever, dry cough, and

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a

B. Brecher, Rational Rationing?, Clinical Ethics 3 (2), 2008: 53-54.

You might also like