Accessibility navigation

When is work unjust? Confronting the choice between ‘pluralistic’ and ‘unifying’ approaches

Goff, S. C. (2023) When is work unjust? Confronting the choice between ‘pluralistic’ and ‘unifying’ approaches. Journal of Applied Philosophy. ISSN 1468-5930

Text (Open Access) - Published Version
· Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.


It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.1111/japp.12684


Individuals have different experiences of work when they are self‐employed, when they perform tasks in the gig economy, and when they follow directives from managers. But such differences are not represented in some of the most prominent non‐ideal theories of work. These describe workers as a coherent group, with a position in the structure of the liberal capitalist economy. I present an alternative that does better at acknowledging difference, through a description of work and workers that has greater ‘pluralism’ and less ‘unifying coherence’. Some might insist that their ‘unifying’ description has superior empirical plausibility. But if ‘pluralistic’ descriptions are valid rivals to provide an accurate characterization of our current condition, then we should consider whether their use in theory can serve valuable aims. I identify the distinctive and valuable non‐ideal aims – epistemic, evaluative, and normative – that can be pursued with ‘pluralistic’ descriptions of work and workers.

Item Type:Article
Divisions:Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Politics, Economics and International Relations > Politics and International Relations
ID Code:113054
Uncontrolled Keywords:Philosophy


Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation