Abstract
Recently a number of theorists argue that physical displacement as a result of gentrification ought to be morally rejected on the basis of the principle of personal autonomy: displacement violates the option to exercise “place-based” or “located life-plans.” What is adversely violated is the neighborhood as a spatial background condition for the ability to realize embedded pursuits. I argue that this attempt to morally value social attachments to a particular place as means (or resources) to realize plans, is unconvincing and subject to moral risk because it instrumentalizes social attachments instead of recognizing their intrinsic significance for those concerned. The paper provides an alternative account of urban justice that is able to accommodate respect for social attachments as a separate moral category, distinct from respect for personal autonomy.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
