You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
according to rawls second principle of justice the poor deserve to get the most benefit out of a social inequality. Since Paywalls dont allow all members of society to access knowledge in the same way, they do not benefit the poorest people the most.
looking from a utilitarian standpoint the amount of people that gain access to knowledge is greater than the amount of people producing papers
Remove paywalls in general could stop people from publishing papers on the internet.
From an utilitarian viewpoint now no one would have access as opposed to paying readers.
most researchers work out of passion and would still publish their articles for the resulting acknowledgement in the scene
Forbidding partly what is allowed to do with intellectual property requires at least partly a very strong left-wing course in politics. A liberal party would never do so because that would raise the question why they don't do the same with water for example.
There are very many open journals, databases, pre-print services and Wikipedia-like communities. Subscription journals may still require payment to publish, do not pay reviewers and/or charge for the journal or articles, so they can simultaneously take resources from writers, reviewers and readers.
Utilitarian again: A general liberal political course has proved to have a net positive tendency on society because it makes the middle class grow.
according to Kants categorical imperative: one maxim may be "all knowledge should be availabe freely"
which would mean that all libraries and other educational institution would have to be completely free as well. While the access to public libraries is very cheap (in Germany) there would still be
The argument appeals to hypothetical implementation and infrastructure costs as a refutation rather than, on its face, arguing within the context of Kant's formulation (or otherwise) , why open flow of information is (un)ethical. iamchristopher