Search results

The approaches of Jurgen Habermas & Jean-Francois Lyotard are compared with respect to issues in ethics & the philosophy of law. Though both consider language to be both the pivot of & the means to sociopolitical action & events, they differ in their diagnoses about the pathology of politics & society. Their opinions about language, law, morality, & the role of philosophy, politics, & science are compared, & sketched against the background of their general philosophy. While Habermas is a strong defender of the Enlightenment project & maintains that it is possible to apply philosophical ideas in the interest of democratization & the nonviolent settlement of conflicts, Lyotard's postmodern philosophy is more skeptical, asserting that no metadiscourse can exist in the social world that would allow real mediation & conflict settlement. The paradoxes in Lyotard's "language-ontology" philosophy, of which he is well aware, are explored. 6 References. Modified HA

The need for a normative (ie, ethical) theory of political action is discussed. After evaluating the idea that politicians & rulers have the right to use violence, lies, & ruses to combat violence & ruse within the community, some important conclusions are drawn from the general democratic principle "no power without control & possibility of sanction by those being subject to that power." Applied to the problem of corruption, this principle can be used as a guideline for a systematic exploration of the structural sources of corruption, defined in a general way as abuse of power (detournement de pouvoir). The main thesis -- that the sources of corruption are found in "deficiencies of the system" that create opportunities for a particular pressure of power to exert an overwhelming influence (without possibilities of control & sanction) in the processes of defining the "public interest" or the "common good" -- is elaborated by an analysis of such "deficiencies" in the Belgian political-administrative system (most of which are not peculiar to the Belgian situation). Suggestions for preventing corruption (mainly through legislation) are offered. Modified HA.

A review of the literature indicates that only a minority of youth shift to a more extreme (leftist or rightist) political position because of their experience with unemployment. Rather, unemployment deepens the political apathy of youth because it serves to isolate youth. The learned-helplessness experience of unemployment also contributes to their political apathy. Analysis of 1985 survey data from 536 employed & 220 unemployed youth regarding their political, socioeconomic, & religious attitudes, & their voting behavior, reveals that the unemployed described themselves as "center left," & were more radical on socioeconomic issues & favored a more leftist vote than the employed. The unemployed were also more skeptical about religion & more permissive in sexual ethics. 3 Tables. Modified HA

The problem of abortion as a political issue is discussed by focusing on two reports of the Belgian National Commission for Ethical Problems (fall 1976). Both the `translation' of the political problem into a question to be handled by an `apolitical' commission on the level of scientific expertise, & the delivery of two dissenting reports are studied as a typical stage of the development of the political decision-making process in this matter, & compared with similar evolution in neighboring countries (West Germany, France, & the Netherlands). From political theory perspectives, the main problem centers on the question: How does a parliamentary democracy solve such a deep-seated conflict concerning the `basic values' of a social ethical order? Answer elements can be gathered from a comparative analysis of the different positions & arguments in the two reports of the Ethical Commission. In opposition to the majority report (13 members in favor) the minority report (12 members opposed) claims that the legalization of abortion would bring about a drop of 10-15% in the birth rate. The minority argues that a truly ethical choice for abortion is difficult to make, since: (1) the choice must be made as soon as possible,.ie, with little time for reflection, & (2) its importance is belittled in order to avoid guilt feelings in the mother. Some of the most important differences between the two groups concern the relationship of ethics to law. The majority argues that a social concensus must be built on the least possible number of ethical presuppositions, while the minority argues that social cohesion is impossible under those conditions. A difference in tone between the two reports is also noted: the minority argument is much more emotional. This shows that the dispute is political, not scientific, & that it has important consequences for the evolution of the social pattern of values. Modified HA.