Suchergebnisse

In a century of unexampled economic and technological progress, with the most educated and sophisticated population ever known, much of the world still writhes under the torture, brutality, and forced labor exacted by tyrants of both Right and Left. In more than half the world's nations governments are masters and people are subjects, and to seriously criticize the masters is dangerous to both life and limb. This world needs a great many things, including a more adequate distribution of food, energy, and medical care, but surely a high priority must be given to the eradication of tyranny. The opinion leaders of the democracies must strive as dedicatedly to, end public enslavement in the twentieth century as their predecessors strove to end private enslavement in the nineteenth.

By contrasting alternative moral responses to inequality Joseph P. DeMarco and Samuel A. Richmond have identified a major area of contemporary moral uncertainty. Some readers will object to the fact that their argument is buttressed by reference to a "no growth" future that is said to make obsolete the ethical answers that have satisfied us in the past. And indeed a strong argument can be made that growth will be with us for a long while yet, and this is almost surely the case if growth is seen qualitatively rather than quantitatively. However, their emphasis on this contemporary question should not be allowed to lead us astray, for the dilemmas of inequality are always with us. Most ethical thought has occurred in societies with essentially no growth presuppositions, and whatever doctrines we favor must be able to deal with such conditions. It is on this more fundamental, timeless, level that the argument should move.

Upon careful examination it is clear the responses essentially support the purposes of the "Survey of Freedom." Both Quigley and Goulet appear to believe that political and civil rights are valuable social assets and that their suppression is seldom justified. Major disagreement comes from their belief that I should take more seriously other factors that relate to "freedom."

Americans are no longer so sure as they once were about what is meant by "the free world." As Alexander Solzhenitsyn reminded us when he came in out of the cold, however, the distinction between free and unfree is not entirely obscured. Though he does not like everything he sees in the democratic nations, he immediately experienced the differences in the quality of freedom. There are discernible differences that make it possible to speak of "free," "partially free," and "not free" nations. Every nation is' in fact marked by a "mix" of civil and political liberties granted, threatened, or withheld from its citizens. The obvious pitfall for the serious analyst of freedom is to weave complex criteria into a simplistic scheme by which one country is pronounced "free" and another "not free." The determination of who is and who is not free is more complicated than that. A serious survey of freedom is a matter of weighing each nation against the scales of freedom in other nations. When it comes to human freedom] no nation has finally "arrived." "Comparative" is the key word.

The distinction between scientific judgment & the judgment of scientists has been increasingly blurred. Generalizations from social sciences lead to the popularization of unproved or unprovable social theory. Social scientists' acceptance of antiscientific frames of mind threatens the theoretical gains of a previous generation. An interest in human psychology has turned to a poetic, human mythology. Science & moral judgment are valuable in intellectual activity but not in social science. Scientists influenced by supportive values must free themselves from extrascientific influences. Applied social humanities attempts analysis to support or change the preferences of individuals for different kinds of behavior patterns. The meaning of life, quality of life, academic questions, & policy issues would be the concern in social humanities. An intellectual basis for new institutions to replace the depleted spiritual & judgmental resources would develop a core of research to form a learning tradition. Applied social humanists would be consultants with professional ethics similar to priests & psychiatrists. They would lecture, give seminars, & groups of social humanists, audiences & clients would form schools to provide cultural ferment centers. Religions cannot be manufactured, but a basis can be formed for the functional equivalent of religion. Modified HA.

In the westernization process, the assumption is made that the Mc is the 'progressive' element striving to overcome the vested interest of the Uc's & the ignorance of the traditionbound peasant masses. While this generally represents the Iranian society, the author focuses on 'att's' of the modern Mc which complicate its 'progressive' role. A small group of wealthy landowners, merchants, manufacturers, & a larger group of army officers support the gov, officials, policies, & other activities. Opposition is in 3 groups: (i) leaders of large tribes, (ii) bazaar & its workers led by traditional religious leaders, & (iii) the 'modern' Mc of gov officials, small landowners, teachers, & non-bazaar merchants. The peasants - (80% Iranians) - are of little importance in public life. This report is based on (a) unstructured observations & conversations recorded in Shiraz, (b) a small sample of personal acquaintances was asked questions at the end of the 11-month stay, & (c) analysis of letters, newspapers, magazines, movies, & Persian & relevant Western literature was included. The following att's bearing on the capacity of the Mc to lead modernization are discussed: (1) Men are by nature evil, powerseeking, & irrational; 'right' educ can change men for the better. (2) All is changeable & in a state of flux. (3) The emotional effect on the audience of verbal communication is stressed; exaggeration is acceptable & demanded. (4) Untruth in statements is tolerated to an unusual degree & in bargaining, describing one's country, or opinions, the truth is regarded as stupid or foolish. (5) One must distrust those around him in society regardless of how friendly they seem at present, (6) Life is a struggle to obtain & preserve a position in an established order through manipulation of others. (7) One is pessimistic about there being any values beyond his own immediate pleasure for which he should strive including fear & distrust of the opposite sex & marriage. (8) Belief in personal superiority, moral & intellectual, over those around him. (9) Any gov is the enemy & great exploiter of the people: only unorganized church people & threats of revolution or de-pop inhibit the gov. (10) One's needs for security, happiness, & success cannot be satisfied in Iran & nothing can signif'ly improve conditions in Iran. The emphasis on personal manipulation of people, absence of att's necessary for cooperation, clouding of communication with untruths, exaggeration, & pessimism are hindrances to the modernizing role of the Mc. J. D. Twight.