Gottfried Schweiger

Obesity and poverty in childhood are widely studied phenomena and despite mixed results, some findings are without doubt: they come with various experiences of mental, physical and social harm, have therefore negative effects on the well-being of children, and they intersect in relation with race, class and gender. In this contribution we analyze child obesity and poverty from a philosophical social justice perspective, which has, to a large extent, so far neglected this topic. We show how they compromise social justice and argue that there is an obligation to implement structural changes to assist the affected children and their families. However, we make also clear that such interventions must not happen in accordance to the current neoliberal fitness and health ideology and its related narrow individualism.

Unemployment is one of the greatest social problems all around the world including in modern capitalistic welfare states. Therefore its social critique is a necessary task for any critical social philosophy such as Axel Honneth's recognition approach, which understands social justice in terms of social conditions of recognition. This paper aims to develop an evaluation of unemployment and its moral weight from this perspective. I will lay out the recognition approach and present a moral evaluation of unemployment as socially unjust based on the knowledge of its negative consequences for those affected. I will then discuss two objections to this conclusion, namely that a mere correlation of suffering and moral wrongness is not enough and that there are legitimate differences in the experience of recognition which could justify the existence of unemployment as deserved. In the next section, I will then refute both objections and first show that unemployment can be understood as socially unjust based on the knowledge that it is involuntary and that the unemployed are not responsible for their condition. Then I will discuss the relationship between the idea of meritocracy and unemployment to examine the assumption of unemployment as being deserved. I will finally conclude that unemployment is not a necessary side effect of meritocracy and that there are good reasons to argue for a moral and justified obligation to provide an actual access to paid work for all who want to work. However, such changes face serious obstacles and are not likely to happen under the current interpretation of meritocracy and social esteem which are one-sided and flawed.

Justice for children and during childhood and the particular political, social and moral status of children has long been a neglected issue in ethics, and in social and political philosophy. The application of general, adult-oriented theories of justice to children can be regarded as particularly problematic. Philosophers have only recently begun to explore what it means to consider children as equals, what goods are especially valuable to them, and what are the obligations of justice different agents have toward children. In addition, while philosophers have extensively written about global poverty and inequality, the issue of disadvantages during childhood, especially child poverty, has only been superficially addressed. This also applies to the Capability Approach (CA) as a normative theory. Although the socio-scientific and economic literature on how to conceptualize capabilities and functionings of children and how to measure them in the context of poverty and wellbeing is steadily growing, the normative aspects of these issues are still under-theorized. The CA offers a unique framework to engage with both the topic of justice for children and questions concerning what justice implies and demands with regard to children living and growing up in disadvantaged circumstances. Furthermore, justice and disadvantage during childhood is a compellingly interdisciplinary topic that invites the combination of ethical and philosophical reasoning together with socio-scientific theories and empirical knowledge. In this special issue of Ethical Perspectives we bring together theoretical and empirically informed discussions that explore the CA in relation to children and the many disadvantages they can face in their lives.

Der Status subjektiver Erfahrungen von Betroffenen für eine normative Bewertung von Armut ist unklar. Exemplarisch lassen sich zwei Richtungen unterscheiden: (a) die These, dass arme Menschen keine zuverlässigen Auskunftsgeber über das moralische Gewicht ihrer Lebenssituation sind, also dass deren Einbezug eine normative Bewertung eher erschweren oder gar verfälschen und (b) die These, dass arme Menschen besonders gut über das moralische Gewicht ihrer Lebenssituation Auskunft geben können, ja eine normative Bewertung ohne diese subjektive Perspektive gar nicht adäquat möglich ist. Die erste These (a) kann als Entfremdungsthese bezeichnet werden, die zweite (b) als Partizipationsthese und auch wenn beide zumeist nicht in reiner Form auftreten, so markieren sie doch eine wichtige Differenz in einer normativen Bewertung der Armut ebenso wie in der Armutsforschung im Allgemeinen. In diesem Beitrag wird nun das Verhältnis beider im Rahmen einer spezifischen Konzeption von philosophischer Armutsforschung, die Armut als eine Verletzung von legitimen Gerechtigkeitsansprüchen versteht, herausgearbeitet. Die leitende These ist dabei, dass subjektive Erfahrungen ein notwendiger Bestandteil sowohl des Entdeckungs- als auch des Begründungszusammenhanges einer solchen Kritik der Armut sind, die jedoch durch intersubjektiv ausweisbare Kriterien gestützt werden müssen.