Within an increasingly unequal, heterogeneous, and authoritarian Global North, a new global consumerism movement championed by activist consumers, together with academics, managers, and organizations, has emerged as the ultimate ethical management discourse for a better global future. NGC reframes Cold War official history of buycott consumerism by emancipating “passive” consumers and “insurgent” boycotts. Drawing on decolonial liberating transmodernity from Latin America, this paper shows how and why “old” and “new” dominant histories of consumerism deny the racialist/colonialist side of liberal capitalism. (...) The discussion involves transmodern and counter-transmodern mechanisms and overlooks everyday liberating boycott consumerism against the colonialism/racialism mobilized by subaltern victims of history. We problematize the re-appropriation of transmodernity as a potential path to decolonizing consumerism and management historiography from a majority perspective. (shrink)

El estudio científico-social del conflicto armado colombiano se ha convertido en un escenario más del conflicto basado en fuertes desacuerdos teóricos y filosóficos. Esto se debe a las inherentes dimensiones normativas e ideológicas de las ciencias sociales, las cuales afectan los marcos teóricos y los métodos científicos empleados y, por ende, la manera en que se perciben los “hechos” a analizar. Incide también en el tipo de explicaciones y variables que serán relevantes y las conclusiones a que se llega. El (...) artículo sostiene que las tesis filosóficas de Alasdair MacIntyre pueden explicar y elucidar este problema además de apuntar hacia una solución. (shrink)

I first provide an analysis of Joel Feinberg’s anti-paternalism in terms of invalidation of reasons. Invalidation is the blocking of reasons from influencing the moral status of actions, in this case the blocking of personal good reasons from supporting liberty-limiting actions. Invalidation is shown to be distinct from moral side constraints and lexical ordering of values and reasons. I then go on to argue that anti-paternalism as invalidation is morally unreasonable on at least four grounds, none of which presuppose that (...) people can be mistaken about their own good: First, the doctrine entails that we should sometimes allow people to unintentionally severely harm or kill themselves though we could easily stop them. Second, it entails that we should sometimes allow perfectly informed and rational people to risk the lives of themselves and others, though they are in perfect agreement with us on what reasons we have to stop them for their own good. Third, the doctrine leaves unexplained why we may benevolently coerce less competent but substantially autonomous people, such as young teens, but not adults. Last, it entails that there are peculiar jumps in justifiability between very similar actions. I conclude that as liberals we should reject anti-paternalism and focus our efforts on explicating important liberal values, thereby showing why liberty reasons sometimes override strong personal good reasons, though never by making them invalid. (shrink)