Susan Erck

There is a growing contention in the Housing Justice movement from activists, theorists, and politicians that not only should everyone have enough housing, but there is something wrong with having too much of it. This paper provides a framework to articulate and defend efforts to create housing wealth ceilings. Building on the work of Ingrid Robeyns, it develops the moral and political doctrine of housing limitarianism. This doctrine asserts it is morally wrong to have too much housing while others, human or animal, do not have enough, and that governments ought to limit the excessive acquisition/consumption of housing by individuals and corporations. I employ the Rawlsian ideal of property-owning democracy to argue for the dispersal of homeownership throughout society. Lastly, I discuss how housing justice can ethically negotiate the apparent conflict between increasing the supply of affordable housing and the preservation of natural habitat for wildlife.

When devising a plan of remedial action to address an ongoing injustice, it is desirable to possess an understanding of the key contributing factors and mechanisms that produce and sustain it. This is the domain of etiology of injustice. Etiology of injustice involves practices of causal selection that give explanatory priority to the operative causation of the injustice at issue. Operative causation refers to those processes and conditions that might be changed for the injustice to cease and to be sufficiently prevented in the future. This article uses causal selection criteria to theorize the ways in which a remedial orientation toward the explanandum of injustice determines the parameters of explanatory relevance.

To formulate a plan of action for bringing about a decisive and reasonably stable end to an injustice, it is helpful to understand the factors and conditions that critically make the difference in causing that injustice. This intuitively seems correct regarding active and ongoing problems. But what precisely is involved in this kind of explanatory endeavor, and what is its role in practical efforts to confront existing wrongs? This paper offers an introduction to etiology of injustice, which is the study and explanation of the operative causation of injustices. Drawing on insights from the philosophy of social transformation, causation, and remedial justice, I sketch a conceptual framework for understanding and undertaking the task of etiology of injustice and outline the contours of the etiological tradition of thought.

The Republic’s political discussion begins with the construction of two contrasting cities: a ‘healthy’ city and a ‘city with a fever’; one defined by environmentally sustainable subsistence practices and the other by ‘luxurious’ over consumption that exceeds the carrying capacity of its land. Plato’s characters proceed to cure the inflamed city of its fever, resulting in the delineation of the ideal political constitution, the Kallipolis, which recovers the virtues of the original, healthy city in an altered form. This paper develops an ecological reading of the Republic, highlighting Plato’s optimism regarding humans’ ability to limit their material consumption in accordance with the limits of the natural world. The conventional interpretation of the Republic’s first city, known as ‘the city of pigs’, is reconsidered in light of new socio-ecological research on traditional resource management systems.

What does it mean to be responsible for structural injustice? According to Iris Marion Young, the ongoing and socially embedded character of structural injustice imposes a future-oriented obligation to work with others toward creating remedial, institutional change. Young explains, ‘Political responsibility seeks less to reckon debts than to bring about results’ (Young, 2003, p. 13). This paper conceptually develops how the goal of remediation bears on responsibility in relation to structural injustice. Does the attribution of responsibility in this context call upon individuals to simply do anything in efforts to affect progressive change? If not, then to what extent are these attributions of responsibility action guiding? On what basis do they direct agents to effectively intervene on relevant conditions and processes rather than act in ways that exacerbate the injustice? I explore the role of etiological explanation in the attribution and acceptance of corrective responsibility, which refers to diagnosis of the operative causation of unjust outcomes. After probing tensions within prominent models of corrective responsibility, I offer my own model attempting to resolve those issues. I argue the forward-looking nature of the call to participate in remedying social problems includes a demand for agents to do so in a way that is itself responsible. I theorize a framework of taking responsibility responsibly. This framework accounts for the moral difference between a conscientiously formulated program of remedial action and a quixotic exercise in reckless delusion.