Suchergebnisse

Fadier John Courtney Murray, in die May issue of Worldview, defined the real issue of "Morality and Foreign Policy" as die nature of morality itself. He defined die debate between die "old" and "new" moralities as an intramural one within Protestantism, and Protestant moralists are by definition unable to use the resources of natural law.

'The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing'. -Archilochus quoted in Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox, 22The fragment from the Greek poet Archilochus, quoted in Isaiah Berlin's essay 'The Hedgehog and the Fox', serves as a metaphor for the long-standing contrast and rivalry between two radically different approaches to public ethics, each of which is couched in a radically different vision of the structure of moral value. On the one hand, the way of the hedgehog corresponds to the creed of value monism, reflecting a faith in the ultimate unity of the moral universe and belief in the singularity, tidiness and completeness of moral and political purposes. On the other hand, the way of the fox corresponds to the nemesis of monism, the philosophical tradition of value pluralism, to which this collection of essays is devoted. This dissenting countermovement, which emerges most clearly in the writings of Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire, Bernard Williams and John Gray, is fuelled by an appreciation of the perpetuity of plurality and conflict and, correspondingly, by the conviction that visions of moral unity and harmony are incoherent and implausible. In the view of the value pluralists, 'there is no completeness and no perfection to be found in morality' (Hampshire 1989a: 177).

The topic I address provides an embarrassment of scope. At the same time, it allows the development of a theme that is worthwhile discussing. When in the public sector is it worthwhile to import private sector concepts, principles and practices and when would the adoption of a private sector model be injurious to the state's constituents? The theme is worthwhile discussing, in part because some of Australia's jurisdictions appear to be adopting what they consider to be private sector practices, without an adequate framework to guide them. Because there is no proper framework, mistakes are made which could have been avoided. There is also some evidence that the public is uneasy about the loss of 'public' from the term public services. It would not be in the public's own interests to resist, for no good reason, the adoption of private sector principles where that would allow more cost‐effective services. The topic also allows a discussion on the influence on public sector ethics of the trend to place senior public servants on contracts that can be disposed of without a reason or prospect of appeal.

Explores those elements of British nineteenth-century deep culture that have to do with the production of subordination, compliance, & acquiescence, & particularly with perceptions of deviance. The purpose of this work is to provide some support for a suggestion about attribution of the replacement of the dominant British public ethic concerning treatment of deviance during the 19th century (1780-1914). Until then deviant persons had been, by & large, subject to policies & customs of exclusion & excision. These practices were replaced by new mechanisms of relegation & subordination, arrangements that lent themselves readily to institutionalization & subsequent centralized control under a rubric of inclusion in humanity. The social, legal, & administrative mechanisms of exclusion increasingly came under attack for their inhumanity, & a climate of favor grew in GB for a public ethic of inclusion. This principle, once it got hold, asserted into public life the beliefs that ended such practices of exclusion as slavery, public execution, transportation to the colonies, the inhuman treatment of lunatics, & the dispatch of "savages." In order to support the suggestion, it will be necessary to establish that evangelicals placed themselves in the public domain as moral experts, evangelicals expertly labeled deviant persons & groups, evangelical publicities & structures energized in the main the revolution in the treatment of deviance without threat to power relations, & the beginnings of national institutions of labeling are to be found in this revolution of ideas. Adapted from the source document.

This piece is about those elements of British nineteenth‐century deep culture which have to do with the production of subordination, compliance, and acquiescence. It is about perceptions of deviance. The purpose of this work is to provide some support for a suggestion about attribution of the replacement of the dominant British public ethic concerning treatment of deviance during the nineteenth century (1780‐1914). Until then deviant persons had been, by and large, subject to policies and customs of exclusion and excision. These practices were replaced by new mechanisms of relegation and subordination, arrangements which lent themselves readily to institutionalisation and subsequent centralised control under a rubric of inclusion in humanity. The social, legal, and administrative mechanisms of exclusion increasingly came under attack for their inhumanity, and a climate of favour grew in Britain for a public ethic of inclusion. This principle, once it got hold, asserted into public life the beliefs which ended such practices of exclusion as slavery, public execution, transportation to the colonies, the inhuman treatment of lunatics and the dispatch of "savages". In order to support the suggestion, it will be necessary to establish that evangelicals placed themselves in the public domain as moral experts, that evangelicals expertly labelled deviant persons and groups, that evangelical publicities and structures energised in the main the revolution in the treatment of deviance without threat to power relations, and that the beginnings of national institutions of labelling are to be found in this revolution of ideas.