In this study, the author analyzes the relationship between general culture & its particularistic segments within the integral political community & concludes that as long as there are citizens, there will be a conflict between the general & the singular; also, the mediation between these two categories is never final; instead, one should repeatedly define what is appropriate, right, & compulsory. This is the strength of the type of reasoning to which the schematic landmarks such as universalism & particularism are necessary only as reminders of what is missing in order to fill in the gaps. Adapted from the source document.
The author's argument is that Europe must renounce Kant's universalism & adopt political means in resolving its permanently conflictual situations. In that way it is to construct its new identity that stems neither from the divergent past of its members nor from their divergent perceptions of the future, but is being built in the politically active present. The European Union as a community sui generis is founded on a paradox. Namely, it does not grow from its familiar historical identity, but is growing into it by permanently resolving the conflictual situations of the state of nature by political means. That paradoxical political project may be subscribed to only politically: mythologies, religions, ideologies & metaphysics would, as it were, create a state-of-nature but only at a higher cultural level. 4 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author contends that it is, in principle, legitimate to talk about global justice/fairness. Everybody has the right to humane living conditions, irrespective of borders & places of birth. However, we cannot expect the emergence of a world state, not even in the form of a world federation: namely, there is no analogy between the individual's natural state & the states' natural state. States are already an established legal state. This means that any association of states, any federation, even a world state, can come into being only by means of an agreement, which is not very likely. The question is how much the existing borders can & should be open? Is there a universal right to the freedom of movement, the freedom of entering a country, the freedom of employment & immigration? According to the author, the universal moral expectation that every person has exactly the same, unlimited rights in these respects founders over the ethical limitations of universalism. In modernity, the universalistic moral & the ethics of closeness, ie, the responsibilities towards people as such & the responsibilities towards one's own solitary community, have been at variance. To live in modernity means that we cannot apply only one criterion as there are at least two & they allow for the prevalence of one perspective over the other only on a case by case basis, but not generally. Adapted from the source document.
Ernes Kulenovic's Ph. D. dissertation Pluralisticka teorija utemeljenja ljudskih prava (Pluralistic Theory of the Foundation of Human Rights), defended at the U of Zagreb in 2009, is presented, outlining its objectives, summarizing & commenting on its individual chapters, & expressing a few evaluative remarks in the concluding paragraph. A synopsis of the work's five chapters is given, focusing on the leading theme of each: (1) the political & theoretical context of a relativist conception of the universality of human rights, (2) the tradition of natural law as the foundation of human rights, (3) the implications of the theory of cultural relativism for the foundation of human rights, (4) major proposals of a relativist foundation of human rights; a critical survey of literature, & (5) a summary of research results. The work is praised for its contribution to the study of universalist & relativist conceptions of human rights, a clear & comprehensive style of exposition, & a very stimulating read. Adapted from the source document.
The author deals with the issue of the relationship between liberalism & multiculturalism & points out certain tensions stemming from the debate between liberals & multiculturalists. The paper mentions the theoretical interventions of political philosophers such as Charles Taylor (multiculturalist), John Gray (postmodern liberal conservative) & Brian Barry (liberal universalist). By looking into Barry's attack on Taylor & Gray, the author tries to show Barry's mistake in accusing those two of relativism derived from incommensurability, but also gives him credit for unerringly recognizing the weaknesses of the relativist criticism of liberalism. According to the author, many theoreticians participating in the academic dispute between the liberals & the multiculturalists assume that the real targets are the liberal egalitarians (Rawls & his disciples). This has created a dramatically erroneous impression that the USA are liberal in an egalitarian way. Thus, while the leftist critics of egalitarian liberalism were finding fault with the abominable universalist theory, the antiliberals (& the antimulticulturalists) have gained prominence. 7 References. Adapted from the source document.
The author summarizes several years of debate between liberal & communitarian philosophers. The wrangle between those two major lines of political philosophy in the 1980s concentrated on two issues: the foundation & the justification of a political community & the preservation of a system of political community & the motivation of its members to support it actively. Regarding the first issue, liberalism has defended successfully its universalistic attitude towards human rights. Partly it took into consideration communitarian critique, admitting that the universal validity of human rights need not be justified by abstract & rational contractual structure but by the fact that liberal values have become an unavoidable element of the tradition of modern political communities. Regarding the second issue, liberalism had to accept the communitarian attitude towards the importance of republican virtues for the preservation of a political community. The proposals for such mediation of liberalism & communitarianism are included in the concepts of constitutional patriotism & communitarian participative democracy. Adapted from the source document.
The author looks into Scheler's philosophy of war as stated in his work The Genius of War. In the context of Germany during World War One, Scheler polemicized with various interpretations of the essence & the nature of war, particularly with those that reduce wars to economic or sociological roots, & claimed that the spiritual drive behind the "real" war was only to increase power. The war for him is part of the human nature, but not as a mere struggle for survival but as the struggle for power that maximally exalts, expands & deepens the common & indivisible values of our moral consciousness. The author argues that Scheler's intention is to glorify war, counter to Kant's universalism & rationalism. He is particularly dismissive of Kant's idea of "eternal peace" & all that is linked with cosmopolitanism & pacifism. The author concludes that Scheler's philosophy is self-delusional. References. Adapted from the source document.
The author explores the legitimating roots of the constitutional state. In his opinion, they can be found in moral universalism & national democracy. Both principles undoubtedly belong with the fundamental tenets of the constitution of modern constitutional state. While the former implies the universality of its postulates, which are accepted by every constitutional state, the latter represents the restrictive principle of this universalness. The author links these two principles & defines a people as a group of individuals who, regardless of their ethnic, cultural, & religious station may, in line with the principles of freedom & equality of individuals, create a successful political community. By the universality of its legality, the defense of human rights & power-sharing, constitutional state is a necessary prerequisite for the prospect of fashioning a people as a group of responsible individuals in establishing universal will. Adapted from the source document.
The relationship between democracy & human rights is twofold: on the one hand, the demand for democracy historically emerged as a result of increased individual rights -- & the democratic regimes were instituted as a guarantor of the protection of human rights. On the other hand, there is a tension between them, since within the democratic state human rights must be protected from the will of the majority. The author examines the complex relationship between democracy & human rights from three perspectives. First, he examines the connection between the right to political participation & the idea of human rights. This connection was unequivocally established only in the 20th century in the way that the right to the freedom of conscience was interpreted as the right to taking part in the political communication process that shapes a community's self-definition. However, whereas the right to democratic participation is morally undeniably founded, its concrete institutionalization is faced with numerous dilemmas & challenges. The author further analyzes the controversy between the liberal & the republican understanding of democracy & human rights. Liberals claim that the foundation of human rights in the law of nature requires universal respect, & that democracy is a rather challenging political regime that may be established in some societies only if some preconditions are already in place. Contrary to this, the republican view, as championed by Habermas, claims that there is an inherent link between human rights & democracy & thus both principles must be universalism of human rights & the inherent particularism of democracy. This tension cannot be overcome by creating a global state, but may be alleviated by formulating a definition of internal state-guaranteed fundamental rights applicable to non-citizens as well, for example by the right to seek asylum, as well as by the requirement that all democratic communities globally promote respect for human rights & for the establishment of democratic institutions worldwide. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.
The article deals with the analysis of multiculturalism as an ideology of political integration in modern pluralistic societies of liberal democracy. The author develops the thesis that the self-proclaimed end of the policy of multiculturalism in European integration should not be considered the end of multiculturalism as a failed policy of "cultural differences", but quite the opposite: the essence of the ideology of liberal multiculturalism in general -- the ideology of political integration. Since the existence of parallel societies and politics in Western societies under rule of technocracy elite has been explained by the reasons of cultural distances and the dialogue of cultures, the need arises to review the entire legacy of political theories and models of multiculturalism in a situation when it comes to the destruction of the very concept of society in a globalized neo-liberal project of economics, politics and culture. The author has reviewed the case of two paradigms -- the political liberalism of Rawls and Habermas, and the politics of identity as difference of Young and Kymlicka -- and argues that the way out of the vicious circle of political universalism without the protection of minorities and cultural particularism without belonging to the "new" political community and society can have no credibility without a radical deconstruction of culture as ideology. The question of identity is no longer a question of preserving cultural values at the time of dissolution of social structures of the global era, but a question turned to the power apparatus as identity. Adapted from the source document.
The author criticizes the universalism of democracy as a world model. He argues that WWI has been insufficiently explored from the perspective of the clash of two democratic concepts. The outcome of that war heralded the long-term victory of the Franco-American universalist concept of democracy over the traditional British concept of democracy. This has greatly influenced the political & philosophical understanding of democracy as the universalist elements of democratic constitutions have prevailed, while awareness of the historically evolved institutions of democracy has been suppressed. The author shows that the emergence of fundamental rights had nothing to do with their universalist natural-law version, since in England & Germany, there were pre-forms rooted in the specific legal traditions of those countries or regions. Since the creation of a world democratic state is not feasible, there is no genuine significance of the universalist democracy. In his conclusion, the author promotes the acceptance of the traditional concept of democracy modeled after British democracy, which would strengthen the UN & international law. This would be particularly important in today's circumstances & conducive to the acknowledgment of various traditions &, consequently, to a variety of systems of government. Adapted from the source document.
Discusses the possibility, meaning, & definition of a prospective supranational identity, a concept assuming greater importance at the close of the 20th century. A primary focus of the analysis is on subjective interpretations of supranationality, eg, the correlation between supranationality & group identity. In an attempt to determine whether a true supranational identity actually exists, the elements that compose such an identity are defined: interdependence, normative universalism, global outlook, & world order. It is concluded that a supranational identity is not only extant, but necessary. 27 References. Adapted from the source document.
U prvom dijelu članka ispituju se Humeovi i Smithovi razlozi zbog kojih je uzajamna briga ograničena na osobe koje su bliske jedna drugoj, pri čemu ovi autori naglašavaju utjecaj kako emocionalne, tako i fizičke bliskosti. Nasuprot tome, Singerova koncepcija univerzalnih dužnosti podrazumijeva da je posebnost odnosa između moralnih subjekata irelevantna sa stanovišta morala i da se etičko djelovanje treba rukovoditi sadržajem, odnosno značenjem, hitnošću i relevantnošću potreba. U ovom se tekstu tvrdi da je zasnivanje dužnosti isključivo na potrebama osobe kojoj je pomoć neophodna nedovoljno i da su dužnosti kao konkretizirani etički imperativi neodvojivi od ovlasti koje subjekti kao nositelji dužnosti imaju. U članku se analizira na koji način susret ili fizička bliskost može konstituirati posebne odnose, kao i zajednička povijest, biološke veze, zajedničko građanstvo itd. Također, u tekstu se analizira može li i na koji način prebivanje na istom teritoriju, odnosno unutar granica jedne države, biti prihvaćeno kao argument u prilog posebnih dužnosti. Argumentacija koja brani posebnost dužnosti nastalu iz bliskosti podrazumijevala bi da ne-državljanima, koji se nađu u našoj zemlji uslijed ekstremno lošeg stanja u njihovoj matičnoj državi, treba pružiti pomoć kao i sugrađanima. ; The first part of the article explores David Hume's and Adam Smith's reasons due to which mutual care is limited to people close to one another, at which point the authors emphasize the influence of both emotional and physical closeness. Contrary to this, Singer's conception of universal duties implies that from the perspective of morality the particularity of relationships between moral subjects is irrelevant, and that ethical actions should be led by the content, i.e. the significance, urgency, and relevance of needs. This text argues that it is insufficient for duties to be established exclusively on the basis of the needs of person who requires assistance, and that duties as concrete ethical imperatives are inseparable from assignments that belong to subjects as duty-holders. The article analyses in what way the encounter or physical closeness may constitute special relationships. In addition, the text analyses whether, and in what way, residing on the same territory, that is, within the borders of the state, may be accepted as an argument in favour of special duties. The argumentation defending the specificity of duties formed on the basis of closeness would imply that non-citizens in our country, who came here due to extremely bad conditions in their own state, should receive assistance just as our co-citizens.
This paper deals with Bhikhu Parekh's theory of intercultural evaluation. Parekh's approach to multiculturalism is based on an open dialogue between minorities & the majority on cultural practices that should be tolerated. In the first part, author criticizes Parekh's concept of operative public values, which Parekh uses as a starting point for intercultural debate. In the second part, author deals with the problem of consistency between Parekh's theoretical arguments & their application to particular cases. In the conclusion, author argues that Parekh's aspiration to avoid both claims of liberal universalism & cultural relativism is unsuccessful because he fails to provide a convincing theoretical argument on how to resolve disputes on cultural values & practices. References. Adapted from the source document.
In the second part of the text the author looks into the paradox of the concept of justice as discerned by Jacques Derrida, & analyzes the tradition of the European constitutional law. Since the constitution & politics are discordant & semantically irritating mediums, the author argues that the European Union is an open semantic relationship of legal acquisitions & political processes. The European Union should be explained by means of contemporary, postmodernist theories derived from the linguistic & deconstructivist reversals of the modern substantial rationalism, universalism & cosmopolitism. Consequently, the constitution & the law are not underpinned by the political or any other specific power; on the contrary, it is the unspecific power of the constitution & the law that enables the gradual development & strengthening of the European law & the constitution without the extra constitutional authorities as the disguised power that traditionally legitimizes law. References. Adapted from the source document.
