1) A question of understanding/clarification: As I see it from my quick read, Simmons argues that there is a general duty to create and uphold just institutions; Rawl's application theory is merely a point of convenience and doesn't change the underlying principle. Would Simmons then argue that this duty extends beyond one's own territorial borders (obviously limited by practicalities)?
2) Borrowing inspiration from the idea that "the personal is political", could a counter-argument to Simmons be that by living in a nation that enjoys liberties created by its just institutions, those institutions apply to them in the "strong sense"? I imagine that it's difficult to meet the "voluntary" critera for a strong application, however one could argue that it is voluntary to continue living in a state.
Se prosegui nella navigazione del sito, ne accetti le politiche:
x