Suchergebnisse

W. E. B. Du Bois's idea of the role race plays in the general progress of humankind is outlined & defended. Du Bois's conception of race is argued to be historical & cultural, rather than biological, allowing him to construe civilization advances as the result of the collective cultural contributions of multiple races within a single society. Du Bois's theory of progress is defended against economic determinism, which could undermine the possibility of racial harmony. His notion of the "Talented Tenth" in every race was designed to ensure that whatever cultural contribution a race might make would be moral & beneficial for the larger civilization. Du Bois observed that the greatest threat to this vision of racially driven progress is the propensity of the Talented Tenth to be corrupted by capitalist social orders. H. von Rautenfeld

Classical liberalism, as opposed to traditional concepts, has established a notion of justice that envisages the equality of individual (negative) freedoms & (tutelary) rights. Under the influence of socialist criticism, modern-day liberals have been trying to include within the concept of justice the problem of the distribution of positive freedoms & rights. The already classic attempt of solving this problem is the theory of justice by John Rawls. Rawls defines justice as fairness, whose basic principles are the equality of basic freedoms of individuals compatible with the freedom of other individuals; the distribution of goods that will most benefit the least privileged; & the primacy of freedom over social equality & justice over economic efficiency. In a pluralist society these principles should facilitate the establishment of the "overlapping consensus" among divergent social groups on the issues of the basic social structure. In his attempt to solve the problems of social equality that Rawls's theory leaves open-ended, Michael Walzer postulates the principle of complex equality, which requires different ways of distribution for different types of goods. These types cannot be specified in advance; however, their distribution is the most remarkable skill of liberal politics. Finally, the author claims that the problem of a just political organization of multicultural societies can be solve by applying Rawls's principle of fairness on the negotiating processes & on achieving consensus among divergent cultural groups on certain issues. Adapted from the source document.

An analysis of Sir Isaiah Berlin's concept of liberal cultural pluralism considers George Kateb's charges that Berlin's views are chiefly aesthetic & anti-universalist. The author characterizes Berlin as a "liberal rationalist" yet aware of rationalism's limits. Arguing that Berlin espoused the notion of minimal individual rights -- a position held throughout history well before the emergence of the modern notion of "human rights" -- the author concludes that Berlin's liberal pluralism is not far from Mill's notion of utilitarian liberalism. K. Coddon

Assesses the special difficulties faced by a liberal democratic system that seeks to maintain its democratic credentials when governing a culturally diverse society. Focus is on the analysis of cultural pluralism developed in 1993 & 1994 works of Bhikhu Parekh. Parekh's attempt to reconcile cultural pluralism & liberal democracy through operative public values is shown to be inadequate. It is questioned whether a liberal democratic system is able to achieve lasting well-being in a situation of cultural diversity. 9 References. Adapted from the source document.

Classical liberalism as opposed to traditional concepts has established a notion of justice which envisages the equality of individual (negative) freedoms and (tutelary) rights. Under the influence of socialist criticism modern-day liberals have been trying to include within the concept of justice the problem of the distribution of positive freedoms and rights. The already classic attempt of solving this problem is the theory of justice by John Rawls. Rawls defines justice as fairness whose basic principles are: the equality of basic freedoms of individuals compatible with the freedom of other individuals; the distribution of goods which will most benefit the least privileged; the primacy of freedom over social equality and justice over economic efficiency. In a pluralist society principles should facilitate the establishment of the "overlapping consensus" among divergent social groups on the issues of the basic social structure. In his attempt to solve the problems of social equality which Rawls' theory leaves open-ended Michael Walzer postulates the principle of complex equality which requires different ways of distribution for different ways of distribution for different types of goods. These types cannot he specified in advance; however, their distribution is the most remarkable skill of liberal politics. Finally, the author claims that the problem of a just political organization of multicultural societies can be solved by applying Rawls' principle of fairness on the negotiating processes and on achieving consensus among divergent cultural groups on certain issues. (SOI : PM: S. 147)

This article offers a critical assessment of some recent liberal perfectionist arguments for the value of cultural identity & cultural membership, in particular the arguments of Joseph Roz & Will Kymlicka. Because these writers ask how cultural membership & identity may contribute to good lives -- & think this a proper question for political philosophy to address -- it seems possible that they may more readily contribute to strategies for securing respect & recognition for cultural minorities than other liberals. But although their acknowledgment of the value of cultural identity & membership represents an advance over neutral or political liberal approaches, liberal perfectionists are mistaken in viewing these features as important primarily insofar as they furnish agents with the capacities & contexts necessary for personal autonomy. While this argument may supply reasons for protecting vulnerable cultures that are liberal in character, it precludes the prospect of accommodating nonliberal cultural groups whose practices & beliefs conflict with liberal ideals & sensibilities. Adapted from the source document.