Suchergebnisse

Since Rawls's Political Liberalism is by now the subject of a wide and deep philosophical literature, much of it excellent in quality, it would be foolhardy to attempt to say something about each of the major issues of the work, or to sort through debates that can easily be located elsewhere. I have therefore decided to focus on a small number of issues where there is at least some chance that a fresh approach may yield some new understanding of the text: Rawls's distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" comprehensive doctrines; the psychological underpinnings of political liberalism; and the possibility that political liberalism might be extended beyond the small group of modern Western societies that Rawls's historical remarks suggest as its primary focus. I also include a discussion of the much-debated issue of civility and public reason, which could hardly be avoided given its prominence in the book's reception. This paper should therefore be read not as a comprehensive account of the work but as one person's attempt to grapple, very incompletely and imperfectly, with a book that is as great as any philosophy has seen on this topic of great human urgency. ; La obra Liberalismo político de John Rawls ha sido objeto de una amplia y profunda literatura filosófica, la mayoría de una excelente calidad. En este escenario es difícil decir algo nuevo sobre los tópicos más relevantes de su trabajo y salir airosa de los debates por ella suscitados. Por tanto, he decidido concentrar mi atención en algunos tópicos donde existe la posibilidad de una aproximación alternativa que pueda generar lecturas remozadas del texto de Rawls: la distinción entre doctrinas comprehensivas "razonables" e "irrazonables"; los fundamentos psicológicos del liberalismo político; y la posibilidad de que el liberalismo político pueda extenderse más allá del pequeño grupo de sociedades occidentales que Rawls identificó como su centro de atención, según se desprende de sus referencias históricas. También he incluido un excurso sobre el polémico tema de la razón pública y la civilidad que difícilmente puede ser evitado dada su relevancia en el contexto de recepción del libro. El presente escrito debe leerse no como una descripción comprehensiva del trabajo de Rawls, sino como el intento personal por atrapar, de forma imperfecta e incompleta, la esencia de estos temas, tan caros para la filosofía y tan urgentes para la humanidad.

What relationship American intellectuals should have toward mass culture—television, films, mass-market books,
popular music, and the Internet—will vary as much as the people themselves. I think that it's good if there are some intellectuals who get deeply involved with these media, because this will help
intellectuals keep contact with a wider public. It's much harder to do that now than it was formerly, given the decline of
print journalism. But I hope not too many will become starry-eyed about these media and forget about the habit of
slow reading, which is such a large part of good thinking. Sometimes the new media can help reading: for example, I
now listen to novels on my iPod while I am running, and I "read" a lot more Trollope and Eliot than I used to. Often,
though, the new media discourage people from reading books.

"In ihrem Artikel verteidigt die Autorin eine aristotelisch-marxistische Theorie der Würde, die sie gegenüber anderen Würde-Ansätzen, vor allem aber gegenüber der stoischen Theorie der Würde verteidigt. Den griechischen und römischen Stoikern zufolge besteht die Grundlage der Gemeinschaft der Menschheit in dem Wert der Vernunft und der gleichen Achtung eines jeden Menschen - eine Ansicht, die auch Kant stark beeinflusst hat. Diese Vorstellung von Würde birgt jedoch eine Reihe von Problemen. Zum einen sind nichtmenschliche Tiere von dieser Konzeption völlig ausgeschlossen, zum anderen kann der Stoiker nicht erklären, wieso es problematisch ist, wenn eine Person gedemütigt wird oder ihr Schicksalsschläge widerfahren, denn der unveräußerliche Wert eines Menschen existiert auch dann, wenn alles in der Welt schlecht gelaufen ist. Nussbaums aristotelisch-marxistische Theorie der Würde hingegen geht von der Annahme aus, dass Würde nicht nur in Rationalität, sondern in menschlichen Fähigkeiten und Bedürfnissen und deren Möglichkeit auf Entwicklung und Ausübung liegt. Das lässt Raum für eine plurale Würdevorstellung, die nicht nur der stoischen Würdetheorie überlegen ist, sondern die Pluralität vielfältiger Lebensentwürfe und Kontexte berücksichtigt, einschließlich der nichtmenschlicher Tiere." (Autorenreferat)

Marriage is both ubiquitous and central. All across our country, in every region, every social class, every race and ethnicity, every religion or nonreligion, people get married. For many if not most people, moreover, marriage is not a trivial matter. It is a key to the pursuit of happiness, something people aspire to—and keep aspiring to, again and again, even when their experience has been far from happy. To be told "You cannot get married" is thus to be excluded from one of the defining rituals of the American life cycle.

Las capacidades de las mujeres y la justicia social

Martha Nussbaum speaks to the graduates about the role of liberal education in producing democratic citizens, the sort of citizen who can keep democracy alive and realize its promise and asks "what does a liberal education that contains a substantial component from the humanities and the arts contribute to the health of democracy?"

This article analyzes the debate over same-sex marriage in America by looking at definitions of marriage, commonly held myths about marriage, & moral arguments against same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is not excluded by gender-nonspecific definitions of marriage, as gays & lesbians are capable of sexual intimacy, raising families, & companionship. After considering several legal arguments for & against same-sex marriage, the author comes to the conclusion that the state has no right to deny any group of people the right to choose who they wish to marry. Laws that deny same-sex marriage are then similar to the anti-miscegenation laws of the recent past, & should be done away with as barriers to equality. Additionally, the author is in favor of courts rather than democratic majorities deciding whether or not to allow same sex marriage, as majoritarian consensus does not adequately protect minority rights. Adapted from the source document.

I am very grateful to Mohammed Abed for the commitment to civil dialogue that he has shown throughout our exchange, which began last year at the American Philosophical Association. Let me begin by addressing his constructive proposal; I shall then turn to his counterarguments. Abed's proposal has two parts: first, that American and European academics might refuse to take part in academic activities inside Israel; second, and most centrally, that they should work together on creating dialogue by sponsoring events in Palestinian universities that "put Israeli, European, and American academics face-to-face with each other and with the appalling conditions in which Palestinians—academics included—are forced to live." I find the latter proposal a wonderful idea, and I hope to join Abed in organizing such a conference, on issues of social and global justice. Obviously, however, the goal of increasing understanding will be reached only if Israeli academics are (as he proposes) included; so it would appear that Abed does not favor the ostracism of individual academics that the British boycott proposes.

It is difficult to see what is accomplished by a symbolic boycott that cannot be more effectively accomplished by one of the alternatives, such as censure or organized public protest. Censure makes a clear statement of exactly who has done what wrong to whom, and it is also voted on by a group, in the typical case, so it is also very clear who supports it. Boycotts have neither type of clarity. It is not clear what the reason for the boycott is, and indeed each individual may join the boycott for different reasons. I suspect in the case of Israel it would not be easy to find a single account of the reasons behind the boycott that would command the agreement of its participants. Nor is it clear who is doing it: in this case there are journals, professional associations, and individuals, all forming a loosely linked movement, and nothing as crisp as a voted-on resolution of censure. Organized public protest also has a superior clarity, because each group involved issues its own public statements, signed by its own officers or representatives, and so we know both who is speaking and what they are saying.

Argues against boycotts of academic institutions & individuals by scholars or others, in particular against Israeli entities, presenting some general principles, but also referring occasionally to the case of the Gujarat genocide in India. Five alternatives to boycotts are outlined: censure, organized public condemnation, failure to reward, helping the harmed, & vigilance on behalf of truth. Boycotts are next discussed, distinguishing two, economic & symbolic, finding the latter lacking value, & arguing that in most cases one of the five alternatives are more appropriate means of protest. Attention is then given to problems with the case for boycotting Israeli academic institutions & individuals, citing issues of academic freedom. It is contended that boycotts of academic individuals compromises the core values of universities. Some suggestions other boycotts are offered to those scholars who wish to protest Israeli government actions or actions of an Israeli academic institution or individual. D. Edelman