000			01597naa a2200169uu 4500
001			5100317102017
003			OSt
005			20190211160156.0
008			051003s2005 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aMASON, Andrew _921965
245	1	0	_aJust Contraints
260			_aCambridge : _bCambridge University Press, _cApril 2004
520	3		_aPolitical theorists disagree about the extent to wich issues of feasibility, stability, institutional design and human can be bracketed in analysing the concept of justice. At one end spectrum some argue that no analysis of justice can be adequate in the abssence of an account of hw it could be implemented, whereas at the other end there are those who argue that principles of justice are logically independent of issues of feasibility. Influenced by the work of John Rawls, many theorists occupy the middle ground, maintaining that analyses of justice must be realistic, that is, realezable under the best of foreseeable conditions. Against rawls and others, this article argues that feasibility does not constrain what can count as an adequate principle f justice but nevertheless maintains that there are limits on such principles that derive in part from human nature, which divergent theories of justice must respect. It also distinguishes between different levels of analysis, some of which are governed by feasibility constraints
773	0	8	_tBritish Journal of Political Science _g34, 2, p. 251-268 _dCambridge : Cambridge University Press, April 2004 _xISSN 0007-1234 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20051003 _b1710^b _cAnaluiza
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c13729 _d13729
041			_aeng