Fact-sensitive political theory -- The indeterminacy challenge -- Fact-sensitive ought-judgements -- Fitness-conditions of rational agency -- Fitness-conditions of group agency -- Control conditions and democratic climate governance -- Collective responsibility -- Moral excuse and democratic citizens -- Collective responsibility and democratic institutions.
This article argues that institutional cosmopolitanism and liberal nationalism can be reconciled as compatible, at least when considering various normative prescriptions for institutional and political relationships. The main claim is that liberal nationalism and the theory of national responsibility present a cosmopolitan argument maintaining that political institutional bodies should be held responsible for catering to their people. So conceived, liberal nationalism provides a significant contribution to contemporary cosmopolitan theory. Three arguments are provided. First, it is argued that liberal nationalists shares fundamental values with institutional cosmopolitans, as Pogge suggests, and especially that they agree on the relevance of shared responsibility supplementing individual responsibility. Second, national responsibility is endorsed as a productive way of determining responsibility for the political distribution of goods and benefits for a group of people that supplements responsibilities at the global level. Yet a premise for this reading of national responsibility is the disputing of the cultural assumptions which are often attributed to the theory of national responsibility. Hence, thirdly, by disentangling the cultural assumptions from the concept of national responsibility, the article suggests a concept of national responsibility based on political institutional capacity rather than culture. Adapted from the source document.
Der er uenighed om, hvorvidt videnskabelig værdirelativisme identificerer en norm for den politiske videnskab, der sigter imod, at politiske værdier bør ekskluderes fra denne, eller hvorvidt den videnskabelige værdirelativisme tværtimod anerkender vigtigheden af politiske værdier i den politologiske forskning. Artiklens formål er at tydeliggøre disse to argumenter. Centralt for artiklens diskussion er, (i) hvorvidt det antages, at sondringen imellem empiriske og normative domme inden for samfundsvidenskaberne alene kan tilskrives en analytisk karakter ,samt (ii) hvorvidt der kan identificeres en logisk afhængighed imellem på den ene side studiet af politiske værdier og på den anden side empiriske studier af politologisk relevante fænomener. Hvis (i) og (ii) kan forsvares, hævder artiklen, at den samfundsvidenskabelige forsker — ud over at bidrage med metodisk set politisk neutrale analyser — tillige bør indtage en værdikritisk stilling over for egne værdiantagelser samt samfundets politiske værdier.
"Until recently, discussions of compromise have been largely absent in political theory. However, political theorists have become increasingly interested in understanding the practice and justification of compromise in politics. This interest is connected to the increased concern with pluralism and disagreement. Compromise and Disagreement in Contemporary Political Theory provides a critical discussion of when and to what extent compromise is the best response to pluralism and disagreement in democratic decision-making and beyond. Christian F. Rostbøll and Theresa Scavenius draw together the work of ten established and emerging scholars to provide different perspectives on compromise. Organized into four parts, the book begins by discussing the justification and limits of compromise. Part 2 discusses the practice of compromise and considers the ethics required for compromise as well as the institutions that facilitate compromise. Part 3 focuses on pluralism and connects the topic of compromise to current discussions in political theory on public reason, political liberalism, and respect for diversity. Part 4 discusses different challenges to compromise in the context of the current political environment. The book will be of interest to a wide range of scholars in the social sciences, philosophy, and law. It will be useful in introducing scholars to a variety of approaches to compromise and as readings for graduate courses in political theory and political philosophy, ethics, the history of ideas, and the philosophy of law."--Provided by publisher
