Suchergebnisse

Albert Jay Nock (1870–1945) was a prominent opinion journalist of the first half of the 20th century, considered a representative of the first generation of libertarianism. The article is aimed at finding an answer to the question: Whom – according to Nock – does law serve? A key element of the problem is the internal dichotomy of the concept of law, which not only can be seen through the prism of the positivist-legal paradigm, but also constitutes the pillar of the jusnaturalistic concept. To properly arrange the object of study, the thesis was used according to which in Nock's doctrine the existence of radically different assessment of the nature of man and his individual goals from the nature of the functioning of the State allows us to demonstrate the dichotomy of two opposing legal orders that serve the welfare of different entities (the individual and the State). To systematize the argument, the concept of the individual and his relations with the State was first presented, and then the dichotomy of the government and the State was discussed, which ultimately finally allowed to analyze the relationship between natural law and positive law. ; Albert Jay Nock (1870–1945) był wybitnym publicystą pierwszej połowy XX w., zaliczanym do pierwszego pokolenia przedstawicieli libertarianizmu. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest odnalezienie odpowiedzi na pytanie: Komu – według Nocka – służy prawo? Kluczowym elementem w przedstawionym wywodzie jest wewnętrzna dychotomia pojęcia prawa, które nie tylko może być postrzegane przez pryzmat paradygmatu pozytywistyczno-prawnego, lecz także stanowi filar koncepcji jusnaturalistycznej. Aby uporządkować przedmiot zakresu badań, posłużono się tezą, według której w doktrynie Nocka istnienie biegunowo odmiennej oceny natury człowieka i jego indywidualnych celów od charakteru funkcjonowania państwa pozwala wykazać dychotomię dwóch przeciwstawnych porządków prawnych, które służą dobru odmiennych podmiotów (jednostki i państwa). W celu usystematyzowania wywodu w pierwszej kolejności przedstawiono koncepcję jednostki i jej relacji z państwem, a następnie omówiono dychotomię rządu i państwa, co finalnie pozwoliło na poddanie analizie relacji zachodzących pomiędzy prawem naturalnym a prawem pozytywnym.

Utilitarianism as an innovative and original stream of ethical and political thought has enriched the philosophical discourse of the last three centuries. Utilitarian thinkers claim that maximization of pleasure correlated with minimization of pain is the correct way to create an objective catalog of rules or behaviors that result in the formation of the highest utility for a society and its individuals. From a methodological perspective, there are differences among the utilitarian philosophers on issues such as: happiness, pleasure or utility guide to diametrical disaccord on an ethical or institutional area. The present analysis of the utilitarian thought represents some of the interesting differences in interpretation of this doctrine. However, utilitarianism does not include logical or intellectually strong arguments for the protection of an individual's rights against the interest of people at large. Thus, this doctrine during the 18th and the 19th centuries postulated the political egalitarianism. Nowadays, utilitarianism has lost its strong ethical position. In the past, utilitarianism was a political instrument to protect most of the people in a society from an arbitrary reigning of small elite groups. In recent times, this thought legitimizes the coercion of the majority will regardless of the fact that other smaller groups may have different political views. Such thinking allows to objectify the individual man which is only identified with instrumentality to maximization of utility. The author analyzes the writings of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer, and compares their doctrines with the scientific literature and forwards a basic thesis on the universal principles of utilitarianism. The author argues that the actual rules of political ethics under conditions of limitation theory of utility append the law of inviolability of the natural rights of an individual.

Utilitarianism as an innovative and original stream of ethical and political thought has enriched the philosophical discourse of the last three centuries. Utilitarian thinkers claim that maximization of pleasure correlated with minimization of pain is the correct way to create an objective catalog of rules or behaviors that result in the formation of the highest utility for a society and its individuals. From a methodological perspective, there are differences among the utilitarian philosophers on issues such as: happiness, pleasure or utility guide to diametrical disaccord on an ethical or institutional area. The present analysis of the utilitarian thought represents some of the interesting differences in interpretation of this doctrine. However, utilitarianism does not include logical or intellectually strong arguments for the protection of an individual's rights against the interest of people at large. Thus, this doctrine during the 18th and the 19th centuries postulated the political egalitarianism. Nowadays, utilitarianism has lost its strong ethical position. In the past, utilitarianism was a political instrument to protect most of the people in a society from an arbitrary reigning of small elite groups. In recent times, this thought legitimizes the coercion of the majority will regardless of the fact that other smaller groups may have different political views. Such thinking allows to objectify the individual man which is only identified with instrumentality to maximization of utility. The author analyzes the writings of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer, and compares their doctrines with the scientific literature and forwards a basic thesis on the universal principles of utilitarianism. The author argues that the actual rules of political ethics under conditions of limitation theory of utility append the law of inviolability of the natural rights of an individual. ; Publication of English-language versions of the volumes of the "Annales. Ethics in Economic Life" financed through contract no. 501/1/P-DUN/2017 from the funds of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education devoted to the promotion of scholarship.