liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Johansson Agnafors, Marcus
Alternative names
Publications (10 of 13) Show all publications
Agnafors, M. (2014). Michael Sandel: What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets [Review]. Tidskrift för politisk filosofi, 18(1), 37-44
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Michael Sandel: What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets
2014 (Swedish)In: Tidskrift för politisk filosofi, ISSN 1402-2710, Vol. 18, no 1, p. 37-44Article, book review (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Thales, 2014
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107524 (URN)
Available from: 2014-06-13 Created: 2014-06-13 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
Johansson Agnafors, M. (2014). The harm argument against surrogacy revisited: two versions not to forget. Medicine, Health care and Philosophy, 17(3), 357-363
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The harm argument against surrogacy revisited: two versions not to forget
2014 (English)In: Medicine, Health care and Philosophy, ISSN 1386-7423, E-ISSN 1572-8633, Vol. 17, no 3, p. 357-363Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

It has been a common claim that surrogacy is morally problematic since it involves harm to the child or the surrogate-the harm argument. Due to a growing body of empirical research, the harm argument has seen a decrease in popularity, as there seems to be little evidence of harmful consequences of surrogacy. In this article, two revised versions of the harm argument are developed. It is argued that the two suggested versions of the harm argument survive the current criticism against the standard harm argument. The first version argues that the child is harmed by being separated from the gestational mother. The second version directs attention to the fact that surrogacy involves great incentives to keep the gestational mothers level of maternal-fetal attachment low, which tend to increase the risk of harm to the child. While neither of the two arguments is conclusive regarding the moral status of surrogacy, both constitute important considerations that are often ignored.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2014
Keywords
Attachment; Ethics of motherhood; Harm argument; Maternal-fetal attachment; Reproductive ethics; Surrogacy
National Category
Other Humanities
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-109365 (URN)10.1007/s11019-014-9557-x (DOI)000338833700005 ()24664239 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2014-08-15 Created: 2014-08-15 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
Agnafors, M. (2013). Bör den liberala staten privilegiera religion i samhället?. Tidskrift för politisk filosofi, 17(3), 1-21
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Bör den liberala staten privilegiera religion i samhället?
2013 (Swedish)In: Tidskrift för politisk filosofi, ISSN 1402-2710, Vol. 17, no 3, p. 1-21Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Abstract [sv]

Det anses ofta att en liberal stat måste förhålla sig neutral till religiösa element i samhället. Att bryta mot neutralitetskravet och därmed privilegiera religiösa element i samhället är uteslutet, hävdas det, eftersom ett sådant privilegierande skulle innebära att man medvetet gynnar en grupp uppfattningar om det goda livet – vilket skulle vara synnerligen icke-liberalt.

I den här artikeln ifrågasätts det neutralitetskrav som åläggs den liberala staten. Istället försvaras idén att en liberal stat i vissa fall kan ha en prima facie skyldighet att privilegiera vissa religiösa element i samhället. I artikeln presenteras tre villkor som måste vara uppfyllda för att ett avsteg från neutralitetskravet ska vara rättfärdigat.

Efter en kortare diskussion om den relevanta empiriska forskningen konkluderas att en liberal stat i vissa fall är berättigad att privilegiera religiösa element i samhället utan att därmed kompromissa med sin liberala status.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Thales, 2013
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107523 (URN)
Available from: 2014-06-13 Created: 2014-06-13 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
Agnafors, M. (2013). Introduktion. In: G. A. Cohen (Ed.), Varför inte Socialism? och Om den egalitära rättvisans valuta: . Daidalos
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Introduktion
2013 (Swedish)In: Varför inte Socialism? och Om den egalitära rättvisans valuta / [ed] G. A. Cohen, Daidalos, 2013Chapter in book (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Daidalos, 2013
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107528 (URN)9789171734174 (ISBN)
Available from: 2014-06-13 Created: 2014-06-13 Last updated: 2014-08-07
Agnafors, M. (2013). Quality of Government and the Treatment of Immigrants. Ecumenical Review Sibiu / Revista Ecumenica Sibiu, 5(1), 25-41
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Quality of Government and the Treatment of Immigrants
2013 (English)In: Ecumenical Review Sibiu / Revista Ecumenica Sibiu, ISSN 2065-5940, Vol. 5, no 1, p. 25-41Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Normative questions concerning the treatment of immigrants can be approached from various perspectives: consequentialistic, deontological, fairness-based, rectificatory, or similar. In this paper, the implications of the idea of quality of government for the treatment of immigrants are examined. It is argued that an acceptable definition of quality of governance includes a principle of beneficence, which prescribes a beneficial treatment of immigrants whenever laws and policies allow. The principle, which is not novel in itself, is presented in a more specified form and is provided with a philosophical justification.

National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107518 (URN)
Available from: 2014-06-13 Created: 2014-06-13 Last updated: 2014-08-06
Agnafors, M. (2013). Quality of Government: Toward a More Complex Definition. American Political Science Review, 107(3), 433-445
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Quality of Government: Toward a More Complex Definition
2013 (English)In: American Political Science Review, ISSN 0003-0554, E-ISSN 1537-5943, Vol. 107, no 3, p. 433-445Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Concepts such as “quality of government” and “good governance” refer to a desired character of the exercise of public authority. Recently the interest in good governance, the quality of government, and similar concepts has increased considerably. However, despite this increasing interest and use, an adequate definition of the concept of quality of government has proved difficult to find. This article criticizes recent attempts at such a definition and proposes an alternative, more complex definition that includes moral content and also encompasses a plurality of values and virtues at its core. An acceptable definition of the quality of governance must be consistent with the demands of a public ethos, the virtues of good decision making and reason giving, the rule of law, efficiency, stability, and a principle of beneficence. The article describes these components in detail and the relations among them.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Cambridge University Press, 2013
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107517 (URN)10.1017/S0003055413000191 (DOI)
Available from: 2014-06-13 Created: 2014-06-13 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
Agnafors, M. (2012). Reassessing Walzer’s social criticism. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 38(9), 917-937
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Reassessing Walzer’s social criticism
2012 (English)In: Philosophy & Social Criticism, ISSN 0191-4537, E-ISSN 1461-734X, Vol. 38, no 9, p. 917-937Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

It is often argued that Michael Walzer's theory of social criticism, which underpins his theory of justice, is not much of a theory at all, but rather an impressionistic collection of historical anecdotes. Contrary to this perception, I argue that Walzer's method can be accurately described as a version of John Rawls' well-known method of wide reflective equilibrium. Through a systematic comparison it can be shown that the two methods are strikingly similar. This implies that, far from the critics' claim, Walzer's method can be described as a philosophically sophisticated method. This also adds credibility to Walzer's views on politics and justice.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2012
Keywords
hermeneutics, justice, John Rawls, reflective equilibrium, social criticism, Michael Walzer
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107519 (URN)10.1177/0191453712461344 (DOI)000311421800005 ()
Available from: 2014-06-13 Created: 2014-06-13 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
Agnafors, M. (2012). When Do We Share Moral Norms?. Journal of Value Inquiry, 46(3), 303-315
Open this publication in new window or tab >>When Do We Share Moral Norms?
2012 (English)In: Journal of Value Inquiry, ISSN 0022-5363, E-ISSN 1573-0492, Vol. 46, no 3, p. 303-315Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Netherlands, 2012
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-107520 (URN)10.1007/s10790-012-9343-z (DOI)
Available from: 2014-06-13 Created: 2014-06-13 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved
Agnafors, M. (2011). A Critical Comment on Collste. Public Health Ethics, 4(2), 203-205
Open this publication in new window or tab >>A Critical Comment on Collste
2011 (English)In: Public Health Ethics, ISSN 1754-9973, E-ISSN 1754-9981, Vol. 4, no 2, p. 203-205Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

This article claims that the account of specification as a way to solve conflicts between rights, suggested by Göran Collste, is unsatisfactory. It is argued that specification is not a solution on its own, but is better described as a remedy in response to a political failure.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2011
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-75744 (URN)10.1093/phe/phr015 (DOI)000300219100010 ()
Available from: 2012-03-09 Created: 2012-03-09 Last updated: 2017-12-07Bibliographically approved
Lejon, K. O. & Agnafors, M. (2011). Less Religion, Better Society? On Religion, Secularity and Prosperity in Scandinavia.. Dialog, 50(3), 297-307
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Less Religion, Better Society? On Religion, Secularity and Prosperity in Scandinavia.
2011 (English)In: Dialog, ISSN 0012-2033, E-ISSN 1540-6385, Vol. 50, no 3, p. 297-307Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Phil Zuckerman argues in his book Society without God that Scandinavian secularity is strongly correlated to Scandinavian prosperity. In this article, we argue that such usage is premature. First, there are methodological issues that are not properly dealt with. Second, providing a causal narrative in addition to mere correlation is needed. Third, we argue that the causes of Scandinavian prosperity are found in close connection to Scandinavian Lutheranism.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Hoboken, NJ, U.S.A: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011
Keywords
Religion, prosperity, secularization
National Category
Religious Studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-70398 (URN)10.1111/j.1540-6385.2011.00619.x (DOI)000294571400012 ()
Available from: 2011-09-06 Created: 2011-09-06 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications