Obrazovanje kao roba: moral ili politika?
In: Revija za socijalnu politiku: Croatian journal of social policy, Band 16, Heft 2, S. 189-190
ISSN: 1845-6014
In: Revija za socijalnu politiku: Croatian journal of social policy, Band 16, Heft 2, S. 189-190
ISSN: 1845-6014
In: Politicka misao, Band 31, Heft 4, S. 26-30
Democracy, as the government of the people by the people, is an inadequately defined notion, giving room for rival concepts of democracy: liberal, socialist, & Christian. The distinguishing features of the Christian outlook are respect for other human beings, the demand for individual involvement in politics, & the government's duty to look after everyone's well-being. The author points to the fact that Christian democracy, with its highlighted moral component of politics, was particularly attractive for the countries that went through fascist totalitarianism. Although the standards of the grand Christian precept of altruism have not been met in social & political life, the author concludes that today's global challenges reemphasize the relevance of the gospel message. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 31, Heft 4, S. 26-30
Democracy, as the government of the people by the people, is an inadequately defined notion, giving room for rival concepts of democracy: liberal, socialist, & Christian. The distinguishing features of the Christian outlook are respect for other human beings, the demand for individual involvement in politics, & the government's duty to look after everyone's well-being. The author points to the fact that Christian democracy, with its highlighted moral component of politics, was particularly attractive for the countries that went through fascist totalitarianism. Although the standards of the grand Christian precept of altruism have not been met in social & political life, the author concludes that today's global challenges reemphasize the relevance of the gospel message. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 31, Heft 4, S. 17-25
Politics is here defined as an activity & an area of human life that concerns power & its exercise. Though power by itself is morally neutral, it often serves as a means of enslaving other people & as such is a moral challenge for Christianity. Christianity does not give precedence to a certain political philosophy nor does it proscribe a certain form of government. However, the Christian understanding of love is a source from which many principles that serve as Christians' guidelines in politics spring: restraint, patience, readiness to compromise, recognition of one's mistakes, not yielding to hate. Christianity equally opposes anational cosmopolitanism & xenophobic nationalism & is in favor of patriotism & altruism as complementary virtues. In conclusion, the author deals with the harrowing political heritage & stresses the importance of a catharsis that should facilitate the transition to a democratic society & politics. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 31, Heft 4, S. 17-25
Politics is here defined as an activity & an area of human life that concerns power & its exercise. Though power by itself is morally neutral, it often serves as a means of enslaving other people & as such is a moral challenge for Christianity. Christianity does not give precedence to a certain political philosophy nor does it proscribe a certain form of government. However, the Christian understanding of love is a source from which many principles that serve as Christians' guidelines in politics spring: restraint, patience, readiness to compromise, recognition of one's mistakes, not yielding to hate. Christianity equally opposes anational cosmopolitanism & xenophobic nationalism & is in favor of patriotism & altruism as complementary virtues. In conclusion, the author deals with the harrowing political heritage & stresses the importance of a catharsis that should facilitate the transition to a democratic society & politics. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 50, Heft 4, S. 20-47
The article critically analyses the political thinking of the late Derrida. The basic assumption is that after the end of the idea of sovereignty of the nation-state we should create a new thinking that will no longer be derrived from the metaphysical context within which the policy of the new technology can be useful. End of the subject in globalization politics requires deconstruction of all concepts of modern politics: state, society, law, morality. Political thinking in contrast to political philosophy and theory of politics has no 'foundation' in present reality. Derrida and many other distinctive thinkers of upcoming community try to operate with the idea that the political can be reduced to any, even secularized, transcendental signifier. What would be able to connect with real political uncanny is comprehended in the provision of action (praxis). It requires a theoretical way of performativity in the event that cannot happen without a decision on the change of reality in a historical-epochal constellation of power and strength. The problem of Derrida's thinking of the political arises from the idea of upcoming democracy: it necessarily has some remnant of theological contents and messianic forms without Messiah and without God in the age of radical depoliticization of society and culture. In this respect, its focus on unconditional hospitality and unconditional friendship has some surplus of non-political acts and ethics, rather than fragments of real politics. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 33, Heft 4, S. 33-50
In the wake of the 'Kant revival,' which has spawned a plethora of works on his philosophy by its contemporary interpreters & advocates such as Herbert Schnadelbach, Hans Lenk, Konrad Cramer, Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, Volker Gerhardt, Karl-Otto Apel, Otfried Hoffe & others (whose studies were published this year under the title of Kant in der Diskussion der Moderne), the author tries to prove, by means of an analysis of Kant's treatise Uber den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht fur die Praxis, that not only did Kant in his later works draft & expound the program of a practical philosophy of morality & right, politics, & history, but also that in the last three chapters of this work, this philosophy evolves into a modern liberal theory of morality, state law, & international or "international civil" law built around the central principle of Kant's practical philosophy: "Was aus Vernunftgrunden fur die Theorie gilt, das gilt auch fur die Praxis.". Adapted from the source document.
Članak nastoji rasvijetliti tendencije suvremene etizacije u različitim područjima života, od gospodarstva i tehnike do znanosti i politike, s posebnim naglaskom na pravnu domenu. Ključno je pitanje: kako se danas masovno nabujala etizacija svijeta života odnosi prema načelu odvajanja prava i morala te prema vladavini prava kao minimuma morala u društvu? Teoretsko je polazište za ovo razmatranje Thomasiusova podjela naravnoga prava na honestum, decorum i iustum te Kantova dihotomija metafizičkih temelja nauka o pravu i kreposti u Metafizici ćudoređa. Taj je okvir upravo vrhunac prosvjetiteljskih nastojanja za strogim odvajanjem sfere zakonitosti i moralnosti. Postavlja se u tom sklopu pitanje, potkopavaju li suvremene etičke tendencije prosvjetiteljsko naslijeđe zaštite ljudskih prava. Na temelju takva dihotomna modela dalje se raščlanjuje utjecaj nedavne ekspanzije profesionalnih, medicinskih, znanstvenih, poslovnih i drugih oblika etike, masovno uspostavljanje etičkih povjerenstava, politička korektnost i djelovanje javnoga mnijenja na okvir ljudskih temeljnih sloboda. Za ilustraciju prikazana su dva ogledna primjera iz Hrvatske – normativni nedostaci etičkoga kodeksa i zloporaba etičkoga tijela u političke svrhe. U zaključku se obrazlaže kako suvremena etizacija može donijeti dobre plodove promicanjem ćudorednih pitanja i pravne zaštite. Međutim, ona ne smije prekoračivati granice i potkopavati vladavinu prava. Razdvajanje morala i prava znatna je baština demokratske ustavne države. Neobuzdana i preobilna etizacija raznih sfera, međutim, može biti pogubna za dobro uređenje i blagostanje u suvremenom, sve više pluralističkom i multikulturnom društvu. Primjerenije je stoga da o pravu sude nepristrani sudci i neovisni sudovi, držeći se u pravorijeku stoljećima izborenih i utvrđenih mjerila pravednosti; oni to zacijelo čine znatno pravednije nego što bi to činili provizorni etički odbori i ad hoc imenovani povjerenici. Etika se može baviti unutarnjom stranom djelovanja i moralnim maksimama. No, etičke maksime nisu uvijek vezane uz izvanjsku pravnu prisilu. O toj bitnoj razlici, koju bi svako društvo trebalo pažljivo razgraničiti i propisati, ovisi u bitnome ostvarenje ljudske slobode u njezinoj punini. ; This paper seeks to shed light on the trends of contemporary ethicisation in various areas of life, from business and technology to science and politics, with special emphasis on the legal domain. The key question is: how does nowadays immensely enlarged ethicisation of the lifeworld relate to the principle of separating legality from morality and the rule of law as the minimum of moral in the society? Theoretical framework for this analysis is Thomasius' division of natural law into honestum, decorum and iustum, as well as Kant's dichotomy of the metaphysical foundations of the doctrine of law and virtue in the Metaphysics of Morals. This framework represents the pinnacle of the demand of the Enlightenment era for a separation of the spheres of legality and morality. The question is raised as to whether contemporary ethical tendencies undermine the legacy of the Enlightenment regarding the protection of the human rights. Based on this dichotomous model, the impact of the recent expansion of professional, medical, scientific, business and other forms of ethics, the massive establishment of ethics committees, political correctness, and the mediation of public opinion on the framework of human fundamental freedoms is further elaborated. By way of illustration, two exemplary case studies from Croatia are presented—the normative flaws of a code of ethics and the misuse of an ethical body for political purposes. The conclusion elaborates how contemporary ethicisation can produce good results by promoting legal issues and legal protection. However, it should not exceed the limits and undermine the rule of law. The separation of morality and law is an important legacy of the democratic constitutional state. The unbridled and extensive ethicisation of various spheres, though, can be devastating to good order and well-being in the contemporary increasingly pluralistic and multicultural society. Therefore, the impartial tribunals should judge by the centuries-old and established standards of justice; they do it more equitably than the provisional ethical committees and the ad hoc appointed commissioners would. Ethics may continue to deal with the inner side of action and maxims. Nevertheless, the ethical maxims are not always bound to external compulsion. The full realisation of human freedom depends on this essential distinction, which every society should carefully determine and regulate. ; Cet article vise à faire la lumière sur les tendances de l'éthisation contemporaine dans divers domaines de la vie : des affaires et technologie à la science et politique, en mettant un accent particulier sur le domaine juridique. La question clé est la suivante : quel est le rapport entre l'éthisation contemporaine du monde de la vie, massivement accrue, avec le principe de la séparation entre le droit et la morale et la primauté du droit en tant que minimum de morale ? La présupposition de départ pour cette réflexion est la division par Thomasius de la loi naturelle en honestum, decorum et iustum, ainsi que la dichotomie par Kant des fondements métaphysiques de la doctrine du droit et de la vertu dans la Métaphysique des Mœurs, ledit cadre représentant le comble de l'exigence des Lumières pour une séparation stricte entre les sphères de la légalité et de la moralité. La question se pose de savoir si les tendances éthiques contemporaines nuisent l'héritage des Lumières de la protection des droits de l'homme. Sur la base de ce modèle dichotomique, une analyse plus profonde est fournie ayant pour but de démontrer l'impact de l'expansion récente des formes de l'éthique professionnelle, médicale, scientifique, des affaires et autres, de la mise en place massive des comités d'éthique, de la rectitude politique et de la médiation de l'opinion publique. A titre d'illustration, deux études sur des cas exemplaires en Croatie sont ici traitées: les faiblesses normatives d'un code d'éthique et l'abus d'un organe éthique à des fins politiques. En conclusion, il est montré que l'éthisation contemporaine peut porter ses fruits en promouvant les questions morales et la protection juridique. Cependant, elle ne doit pas dépasser les limites de le régime du droit et le nuire. La séparation entre la morale et le droit est un héritage important de l'Etat constitutionnel démocratique. L'éthisation effrénée et étendue à divers domaines peut néanmoins être dévastatrice pour le bon ordre et le bien-être dans la société contemporaine de plus en plus pluraliste et multiculturelle. Par conséquent, les juges impartiaux et les tribunaux indépendants devraient juger selon les normes de la justice séculaires et bien établies ; ils le font de manière plus équitable que le feraient le comité d'éthique provisoire ou les commissaires nommés ad hoc. L'éthique peut continuer à traiter du côté intérieur des actions et des maximes. Néanmoins, les maximes éthiques ne sont pas toujours liées à la contrainte juridique extérieure. De cette distinction essentielle, que chaque société devrait déterminer et réglementer avec soin, dépend avant tout la réalisation de la liberté humaine dans sa plénitude. ; Dieser Aufsatz versucht, die Tendenzen der zeitgenössischen Ethisierung in verschiedenen Bereichen des Lebens, von der Wirtschaft und Technik bis hin zur Wissenschaft und Politik, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtsdomäne, zu beleuchten. Die Schlüsselfrage lautet: Wie verhält sich die heutige massiv angewachsene Ethisierung der Lebenswelt zum Grundsatz der Trennung von Legalität und Moralität sowie zum rechtsstaatlichen Postulat des Rechts als des Minimums der Moral in der Gesellschaft? Als Rahmen für die Untersuchung dient die Aufteilung des Naturrechts in honestum, decorum und iustum bei Thomasius, ferner Kants Dichotomie der metaphysischen Anfangsgründe der Rechts- und Tugendlehre in der Metaphysik der Sitten, wo als Höhepunkt die aufklärerische Forderung nach einer strengen Scheidung der Sphäre der Legalität von der Moralität untermauert wurde. Es wird die Frage erörtert, ob zeitgenössische Ethisierungstendenzen das aufklärerische Erbe der Verteidigung der Menschenrechte untergraben. Ausgehend von diesem dichotomischen Modell wird erörtert, welche Auswirkungen die jüngere Ausweitung der Ethik im Berufsleben, in Medizin, Wissenschaft, Geschäftsbeziehungen sowie sonstige Formen der Ethik, ferner die massiven Gründungen von Ethikkommissionen, die politische Korrektheit und die öffentliche Meinungsbildung auf den Rahmen der menschlichen Grundfreiheiten haben. Zur Veranschaulichung werden zwei Fallbeispiele aus Kroatien angeführt: die normativen Mängel eines Ethikkodexes und der Missbrauch eines ethischen Gremiums zu politischen Zwecken. Abschließend wird festgestellt, dass die zeitgenössische Ethisierung gute Früchte tragen kann, sofern sie die Rechtsfragen und den Rechtsschutz fördert. Aber sie darf dabei nicht die Grenzen überschreiten und den Rechtsstaat untergraben. Die Trennung von Moral und Recht ist ein wichtiges Erbe des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Die ungezügelte und extensive Ethisierung verschiedener Sphären kann indessen für die gute Ordnung und das Wohlleben in der heutzutage immer ausgeprägteren pluralistischen und multikulturellen Gesellschaft verheerend sein. Daher mögen lieber unparteiische Richter und unabhängige Gerichtshöfe nach den in vielen Jahrhunderten errungenen und bewährten Maßstäben der Gerechtigkeit urteilen; sie tun dies gerechter, als es provisorische Ethikkomitees und ad hoc ernannte Beauftrage je tun würden. Die Ethik mag sich weiter mit dem inneren Bereich des Handelns und den Maximen befassen. Die ethischen Maximen sind aber dem äußeren Zwang nicht immer verpflichtet. Von dieser wesentlichen Unterscheidung, die jede Gesellschaft sorgfältig bestimmen und reglementieren sollte, hängt die Verwirklichung der Menschenfreiheit in ihrer Fülle ab.
BASE
In: Politicka misao, Band 33, Heft 4, S. 84-122
Kant's philosophy in its entirety outgrew its Humeist heritage of rational empiricism, ie, relativism. This relativism is particularly unwelcome in the realm of morality -- hence his philosophy of a priori concepts. Since law, as the minimum of morality, would be invalidated by the political (value) relativism, Kant has no politics apart from law -- specifically civil, Roman law -- which he declares natural (& absolutely rational). Roman private legal principles are the axiomatic foundations on which a structure of deductional theorems of political reasoning is erected. Ubi ius ibi remedium is the central principle, which serves to deny & circumvent rights -- including the right to revolt -- that would make up a set of political supra "rights." In the age of enlightened absolutism -- a schematic derivative of the philosophy of rationalism -- government ceased to be diffuse. Its bearers became too unequivocal, & the whole system turned into a highly visible & assailable target. For Kant (as well as for Hobbes), anarchy is the worst form of tyranny. While Montesquieu & Rousseau sought refuge from tyranny in the diffusion of power, & Raynal & Mably claimed that the right to resist oppression is not only the ultimate remedium but a civil duty, Kant (long before the French revolution & Burke) considers as nonpermissible not only the right to resist oppression but also that against revolutions instigated by legitimate sovereigns. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 41, Heft 4, S. 5-21
The author looks into Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy in the context of the present-day debates on the theory of morals & politics. The starting point of Habermas' theory is his idea of discourse ethics. This is cognitivist ethics in the tradition of Kant, Rawis, Tugendhat & Apel that is built around the concept of normative correctness analogous to the descriptive notion of truth. This idea is best expressed by Kant's categorical imperative, according to which the validity of norms depends on their generalizability. Habermas, in line with Kant, is aware of the impossibility to rationally found universalist ethics. Instead of the final (deductive) foundations he offers the reflexion about the assumptions of a meaningful discourse i.e. the argumentation rules that must be respected if language communication is to be meaningful. Habermas' outline of the theory of law in his book Between Facts and Norms (Faktizirat und Geltung) builds on this moral-theoretical position. In modern society the function of law is to facilitate social communication: law is the legitimate framework of social communication on which the actors can rely. Habermas considers the specific link between human rights & popular sovereignty as the source of legitimacy. Human rights & popular sovereignty mutually condition each other & at the same time there is tension between them. The absolutization of individual rights makes democracy impossible since decision-making is obstructed; absolutization of popular sovereignty leads to the tyranny of the majority & the loss of rights. Habermas thinks that law can be legitimized by communicational mediation between the individual rights & popular sovereignty, in line with the principle that the claim to validity can only be laid by those norms that are approved of by all potentially affected individuals as rational discourse participants. Popular sovereignty is consistently procedurally interpreted. On the one hand, it is practised by means of public discourses & on the other through decision-making processes within democratically structured political institutions. The two dimensions of legitimizing law are different yet complementary: public discourses take place in civil society, political decisions are made in democratic institutions of the state. This is also an outline of the specific position of Habermas' political theory of deliberative democracy. It is equally distant from the model of liberal democracy which emphasizes possessive individualism & the protection of citizens' private interests, & from the republican democratic model that emphasizes political participation of active citizens. The theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of civil society: It is a sort of a practical verification of discourse ethics. Civil society is a sphere of autonomous public communication that is complementary to state administration but cannot substitute it. Communication power is exercised in the "siege mode" i.e. multiple discourses of civil society should contribute to the rationality & legitimacy of the decisions made by the political system, but do not have to replace them nor expose them to populist pressures. 2 Figures, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 41, Heft 4, S. 5-21
The author looks into Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy in the context of the present-day debates on the theory of morals & politics. The starting point of Habermas' theory is his idea of discourse ethics. This is cognitivist ethics in the tradition of Kant, Rawis, Tugendhat & Apel that is built around the concept of normative correctness analogous to the descriptive notion of truth. This idea is best expressed by Kant's categorical imperative, according to which the validity of norms depends on their generalizability. Habermas, in line with Kant, is aware of the impossibility to rationally found universalist ethics. Instead of the final (deductive) foundations he offers the reflexion about the assumptions of a meaningful discourse i.e. the argumentation rules that must be respected if language communication is to be meaningful. Habermas' outline of the theory of law in his book Between Facts and Norms (Faktizirat und Geltung) builds on this moral-theoretical position. In modern society the function of law is to facilitate social communication: law is the legitimate framework of social communication on which the actors can rely. Habermas considers the specific link between human rights & popular sovereignty as the source of legitimacy. Human rights & popular sovereignty mutually condition each other & at the same time there is tension between them. The absolutization of individual rights makes democracy impossible since decision-making is obstructed; absolutization of popular sovereignty leads to the tyranny of the majority & the loss of rights. Habermas thinks that law can be legitimized by communicational mediation between the individual rights & popular sovereignty, in line with the principle that the claim to validity can only be laid by those norms that are approved of by all potentially affected individuals as rational discourse participants. Popular sovereignty is consistently procedurally interpreted. On the one hand, it is practised by means of public discourses & on the other through decision-making processes within democratically structured political institutions. The two dimensions of legitimizing law are different yet complementary: public discourses take place in civil society, political decisions are made in democratic institutions of the state. This is also an outline of the specific position of Habermas' political theory of deliberative democracy. It is equally distant from the model of liberal democracy which emphasizes possessive individualism & the protection of citizens' private interests, & from the republican democratic model that emphasizes political participation of active citizens. The theory of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of civil society: It is a sort of a practical verification of discourse ethics. Civil society is a sphere of autonomous public communication that is complementary to state administration but cannot substitute it. Communication power is exercised in the "siege mode" i.e. multiple discourses of civil society should contribute to the rationality & legitimacy of the decisions made by the political system, but do not have to replace them nor expose them to populist pressures. 2 Figures, 16 References. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 33, Heft 1, S. 34-54
At a few places in his Philosophy of Right, Hegel directly addresses the discussion with his famous predecessor, Immanual Kant. These places indicate very clearly the distinction between the two philosophical standpoints. This article focuses on Hegel's criticism of Kant's views on peace & international law. For two reasons however, it starts with Hegel's rejection of Kant's moral point of view. First, this criticism is presupposed in Hegel's rejection of Kant's view on politics. Second, at least a partial return to Kantian morality is implied in Hegel's statement that war, although not to be condemned categorically, must be limited both quantitatively & qualitatively. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 30, Heft 4, S. 130-139
The author shows that it is not possible to formulate a consistent theory of freedom, tying together the internal perspective of action & the external perspective of rational description & explanation of action. In the history of philosophical discussion about freedom as a fundamental concept of liberalism, Kant & Hegel represent two extremes. Each tried to formulate consistently a concept of freedom & its moral & political consequences, but both paid the price of one-sidedness. Kant postulates the primacy of the internal perspective of the moral subject, which is ideally expressed by his categorical imperative. However, the concept of freedom defined from the stance of autonomous morals loses contact with the historical world of traditional values, with the consequence of moralizing politics & unrealistically disregarding the nation as a characteristic framework of politics. Hegel points out the priority of the external perspective, which gives him an analytical advantage relative to liberal theories of natural law & Kant's moralist position. However, as warned by the German political theorist Hermann Heller, Hegel's position results in defining the sphere of collective morality as superior to individual action, disregarding the protection of individual liberties against the state & accepting national politics of power as the only criterion for international politics. The author concludes that liberal constitutions, unlike totalitarianism, must then be inconsistent. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 46, Heft 1, S. 169-176
Xenophon was the first Greek philosopher to clearly separate the economic phenomenon from morality, law & politics, defining it from the standpoint of efficiency, deprivation & welfare. These traits of Xenophon's approach are particularly pronounced in Ways & Means. In this essay he presents an integral discussion of possibilities to increase income of the state of Athens, focusing only on issues pertaining to the boosting of economic activity as source of the state's income & the source of its security. Thus it is rather a development study, a strategy of economic growth, an evaluation of economic power & of ways of increasing it, and, to the extent of our knowledge, it is the first such treatise in history. Although its intent is to provide practical instruction on development policy, it is not conceived as a set of suggestions regarding actual steps to be taken, but as an integrated plan of development, the consistency of which is ensured by theoretical understanding of economic processes & by sober insight into the entire internal structure & external relations of a particular state (Athens) with its surroundings. The predominant evaluation criterion is economic efficiency & citizens' welfare, ie., the narrower economic criterion, by which a state's development policy is to be judged. Adapted from the source document.
In: Politicka misao, Band 32, Heft 1, S. 6-19
Examines liberal democracy in relation to the European tradition from whence it sprung & enumerates the biggest differences between the historical forms of democracy & its modern guise. According to the author, the authentic enemies of modern liberal democracy are fascism & bolshevism. He summarizes his analyses into three points. (1) In western countries the principles of democracy have mostly been realized in the course of a long genesis following the conflict with monarchist absolutism & more recently, with fascism. (2) In the philosophy of modern day politics, mostly formal & quantitative aspects of democratic processes have been analyzed, which is the biggest shortcoming of these theories. That is why the author proposes an analysis of meaningful aspects of liberal democracy. (3) Focus is on the analysis of freedom & democracy as forms of the organization of political life of major human groups characteristic for the industrial age & modern capitalism. At the end of his study the author puts some light on the relationship between liberalism & democracy by describing the hermeneutical functions of morality in the modern age. The political culture & moral consciousness represent the base for the functioning of mediatory democracy. The hermeneutical nature of moral consciousness allows modern democracy to develop a practical relationship with its tradition without which it cannot function, as has been the case with those states in which democracy is being introduced today. Adapted from the source document.