Freedom and Liberty

Krzysztof Trzcinski, 'Citizenship in Europe: The History of the Idea and Institution.' This is an interdisciplinary book that is mostly political, historical and juridical in character, as the concept of citizenship is one of the key terms of the social sciences, and raises questions of a legal, political, historical, philosophical and sociological nature. The main subjects of this work are the origins and evolution of the idea and institution of citizenship in Western Europe. Doctrinal and normative models of citizenship presented (...) in this monograph are of different historical origins (beginning with ancient times and ending with the 20th century). This work shows that in different historical periods, the concept of citizenship underwent shifts in semantic substance and that the idea of citizenship is in permanent flux. Hence, the essence of citizenship is continually being enriched with new elements (or, at times, impoverished by the loss of other elements). The concept of citizenship has been redefined in the historical perspective according to specific conditions of a socio-political, economic, and cultural nature. At various historical periods, the term 'citizen' referred to a broader or narrower spectrum of society. Criteria for membership in the body of citizens also evolved. Over the centuries, many models of citizenship emerged in Europe. Some of them were institutional in form (the Roman model, for example), whereas others were the fruit of the social and political thinking of political philosophers at different times (such as Jean Bodin). The basic models emerged in ancient Athens and Rome. Later models of citizenship usually took over a considerable number of traits particular to initial models (such as the right to life), but at the same time, they usually eliminated some of their elements (such as the enslavement of certain members of society) while simultaneously creating and adding new ones (such as electoral rights for women). In this manner, models emerged, which were an offshoot of classical models. These models contributed in part to the formation of the contemporary institution of citizenship, which brings together different elements of various historical models. This book is a contribution to research into the evolution of the state (including research into the formation of the nation-state in Europe), as the institution of citizenship is inherently and functionally tied to the state. This work also contributes to research into the evolution of a new model of citizenship, namely the supranational European Union citizenship. The institutional development of the idea of EU citizenship could - along with the unavoidable transformation of all community structures or even the very idea of integration itself - lead to a fundamental change in the contemporary concept of state citizenship. This work could also prove useful in research into the phenomenon of immigration in Europe, especially into the interdependence between the question of obtaining the citizenship of the host state and the effective integration of immigrants. (shrink)

This paper analyses the interpretation of the Marxist dialectic proposed by three important French philosophers of the twentieth century: Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Raymond Aron (1905-1983). Starting from different theoretical and political points of view, they criticize the historical determinism of the Marxist dialectic and propose three different “philosophies of freedom.” In the Adventures of the Dialectic (1955), Merleau-Ponty criticizes a theory of human history based only on economic structure, and denounces the violence of the Soviet communism. (...) He also accuses his friend Sartre – who had a more favourable attitude towards Soviet communism – of “ultrabolshevism.” Merleau-Ponty was subsequently active in the French non-communist Left. The existentialist philosopher Sartre always sympathized with the Left, and supported the French Communist Party (PCF) until the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary. In his Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960), Sartre also underlined the failure of the Soviet revolution, and criticized the violence of Marxist revolutionary thought. The last part of this paper deals with the philosopher and political sociologist Raymond Aron, who had a lifelong, sometimes fractious, friendship with Sartre. He always defended a “skeptical and anti-ideological” liberal position. In his best known book The Opium of the Intellectuals (1955), Aron argues that in post-war France, Marxism was the opium of the intellectuals. In this book, Aron chastised French intellectuals for what he described as their harsh criticism of capitalism and democracy and their simultaneous defense of Marxist oppression, atrocities, and intolerance. In opposition to the dialectical ideology of Marxism, Aron proposes an antitotalitarian philosophical and political theory based on the development of individual liberties. (shrink)

[CITIZENSHIP IN EUROPE: A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE IDEA]. Obywatelstwo należy do najistotniejszych kategorii określających pozycję człowieka w państwie. W niektórych okresach dziejów pojęcie obywatelstwa istniało jedynie w sferze idei, w innych idea uległa urzeczywistnieniu, a członkostwo w państwie (lub mieście) oraz status obywatelski znalazły formalny wyraz na niwie prawnoustrojowej. Kształtowanie się obywatelstwa stanowi proces długi i wielofazowy. Obywatelstwo w Europie pozostaje bowiem już od starożytności w stanie permanentnego rozwoju i wciąż wzbogacane jest o nowe treści (lub też czasem zubożane (...) o pewne elementy); tym niemniej jego rdzeń, nakreślony w pierwowzorach antycznych, pozostaje w dużej mierze tożsamy. Sens obywatelstwa, czy też jego ładunek znaczeniowy ulega redefinicji w perspektywie historycznej w zależności od specyficznych warunków natury społeczno-politycznej. Na poszczególnych etapach ewolucji obywatelstwo obejmuje swym zasięgiem węższą lub szerszą część społeczeństw państwowych. (shrink)

A pesar de que la tradición republicana y su concepción de libertad como no dominación tuvieron un lugar protagónico durante mucho tiempo, quedó opacada por el binomio berliniano que agotaba las concepciones de libertad en la libertad negativa como no interferencia y la libertad positiva como autocontrol o autogobierno. En este contexto el neorepublicanismo es responsable de reflotar la concepción republicana de libertad como no dominación presentándola como una alternativa superadora de ambos enfoques. En Razones públicas Andrés Rosler se propone (...) ofrecer una imagen del republicanismo clásico que gira alrededor de la libertad como no dominación para informar al resto de los elementos, a saber, virtud, debate, ley y patria. Sin embargo, la imagen ofrecida por Rosler pretende desempeñar un rol normativo para el que resulta desactualizada. En este artículo me propongo mostrar esta brecha y, luego, señalar una nueva brecha entre el neorepublicanismo y los enfoques estructurales puesta de relieve por varias autoras. (shrink)

Az alábbi tanulmány a Jugoszláv Kommunisták Szövetségének (JKSZ) nemzetiségi doktrínájáról és politikájáról, valamint a JKSZ egyik prominens vajdasági magyar teoretikusának, Rehák Lászlónak az idevágó írásairól szól. Rehák Lenin és Kardelj nyomán magyarázza a nemzetiségi kérdés összefüggését a gazdasággal. Habár a munkáiban nincs nyílt kritika az alkotmányos renddel és a politikával szemben, amellett érvelek, hogy ha összeszedjük az elszórt és valamicskét burkolt kritikai megjegyzéseit, világos, hogy elég jól látta a rezsim hibáit és igazságtalanságait.

Este texto analiza las concepciones que J. S. Mill y K. Marx defienden sobre la libertad, con el fin de establecer si entre ellas hay puntos de convergencia, a pesar de las diferentes motivaciones que las impulsan. En este sentido, la tesis que se propone es que ambos pensadores coinciden en la defensa que realizan de la libertad, dado que le otorgan un papel destacado a la autodeterminación, el libre desarrollo de la individualidad y a la existencia de condiciones materiales (...) para su concreción. Así las cosas, las distancias que las separan no constituyen ningún óbice al momento de abogar por lo que consideran como el valor fundamental del ser humano. (shrink)

James Mackintosh distinguishes himself from the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers for his eloquent apology for the French Revolution in the 1790s. His Vindiciae Gallicae refutes Edmund Burke’s criticism of the French politics and his praise of the English liberal tradition. Mackintosh establishes his own argument based on his Scottish predecessors’ views on commercial society while adopting the Lockean view of political consent. Scrutinising Mackintosh’s advocacy of political reform and his understanding of political legitimacy, this essay argues that Mackintosh’s take on these (...) themes is a manifestation of establishing a modern theory of government in his political thought. (shrink)

A review essay on Jonathan Israel, The Expanding Blaze: How the American Revolution Ignited the World, 1775-1848 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017) and Richard D. Brown, Self-Evident Truths: Contesting Equal Rights from the Revolution to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017).

Several conflict theorists have appropriated Hegel’s ‘struggle for recognition’ to highlight the healthy dimensions of conflict and to explore ways of reaching reconciliation through mutual recognition. In so doing, some scholars attend to the interpersonal dimension of reconciliation, while others focus on the interstate dimension of reconciliation. This paper argues that both approaches miss important Hegelian insights into the modern state. Hegel understands that freedom must be situated and bounded in order to take a concrete form. He believes that concrete (...) freedom and domestic reconciliation create an atmosphere that can pressure the state to be more confrontational with other states by attaining a stronger individuality. Thus, the common concern about freedom among Hegelian states remains a ‘thin’ version of communication, vulnerable to such factors as national honor or recognition status. Hegel’s challenge urges peace-inspired scholars to explore ways of achieving concrete freedom and domestic reconciliation while simultaneously relieving interstate conflict. (shrink)

Este artigo tem por objetivo analisar se não seria o caso que o trato diferenciado dedicado a cidadãos nacionais e imigrantes seria discriminatório. A questão dos imigrantes internacionais aflora atualmente nos mais distintos campos da sociedade. Entretanto, o foco da discussão aqui não é somente o ato de cruzar as fronteiras – ponto central de grande parte das publicações filosóficas sobre imigração. O cerne é a diferença entre direitos e obrigações de imigrantes internacionais e cidadãos nacionais. Não se trata de (...) cidadãos de um ou outro país, mas da categoria ‘cidadão nacional’ frente à categoria ‘estrangeiro’, independentemente do país. Será discutido o conceito de discriminação, a fim de que, sobre o pano de fundo deste conceito, sejam debatidas as restrições aos direitos dos estrangeiros. Com isso, pretende-se demonstrar que este tratamento diferenciado caracterizaria uma discriminação, pois os argumentos que sustentariam a diferenciação são insuficientes para justificá-la. -/- This paper aims to analyze whether the differential treatment dedicated to national citizens and immigrants would be discriminatory. The issue of international migrants arises today in very different fields of society. However, the core of the discussion here is not only the act of crossing borders – focus of much of the philosophical publications about immigration. The focus of the analysis is the difference of rights and obligations between international migrants and national citizens. It is not about one country or another, but the discussion concern the category ‘national citizen’ in relation to the ‘foreign’, regardless of the country. We will discuss the concept of discrimination, in order to debate the restrictions over the rights of the strangers on the background of this conceptualization. Our goal is to show that this differential treatment would characterize as discrimination, because the arguments that support this differentiation are insufficient for justifying it. (shrink)

English Title: From Oppression to Independence: the Philosophy of Love in The Second Sex -/- Beauvoir’s philosophy of love has been studied in a few papers but these papers focus mainly on a description of the forms of love that are analyzed in The Second Sex without questioning the role that Beauvoir’s philosophy of love plays in her general argument on women’s oppression. Although one could think that philosophy of love plays a minor role in The Second Sex, this paper (...) argues that for Beauvoir the transformation of heterosexual love may well be the main way to convert oppression in emancipation at the individual level. Beauvoir’s philosophy of love is this crucial to link her analysis of women’s oppression with her proposing paths towards emancipation. (shrink)

I will first offer a general understanding of the flavor of libertarianism I will be using as the foundation for my argument for open borders. Then, I will summarize the argument put forth by Joseph Carens in “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” which consummates the importance of open border policy in maintaining the efficacy of property rights. After, I will supplement an additional argument to Carens’s in order to strengthen it. In this section, I will interpret Robert (...) Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia such that it informs the importance of the enforcement of a right of free movement and I will furthermore detail how border restrictions directly violate that right. In the final section of this paper, I will address criticisms made both by libertarian and liberal thinkers against the enforcement of a right of free movement. One of the liberal criticisms, in particular, will serve as a jumping-off point for a conversation highlighting the ways in which libertarian arguments for open borders differ from liberal arguments for open borders. These differences, I contend, illuminate how disparate these philosophical traditions are, especially in the manner that they conceive of rights. (shrink)

Modern neurotechnologies are rapidly infringing on conventional notions of human dignity and they are challenging what it means to be human. This article is a survey analysis of the future of the digital age, reflecting primarily on the effects of neurotechnology that violate universal human rights to dignity, self-determination, and privacy. In particular, this article focuses on neuromarketing to critically assess potentially negative social ramifications of under-regulated neurotechnological application. Possible solutions are critically evaluated, including the human rights claim to the (...) ‘right to mental privacy’ and the suggestion of a new human right based on spiritual jurisdiction, where the human psyche is a legal space in a substantive legal setting. (shrink)

Pettit endorses a ‘republican’ conception of social freedom of the person as consisting of a state of non-domination, and takes this to refute Mill’s ‘liberal’ claim that non-domineering but coercive interference can compromise social freedom of choice. This paper argues that Pettit’s interpretation is true to the extent that Mill believes that the legitimate, non-arbitrary and just coercion of would-be dominators, for the sake of preventing them from dominating others, can render them unfree to choose to do so without rendering (...) them socially unfree (qua dominated) persons in their own right. However, contra Pettit, Mill is correct to reject the ‘republican’ view for at least two reasons. Firstly, it enables him to avoid commitment to the implausible implication that would-be dominators who sincerely deny any interest in a shared system of basic liberties are automatically rendered unfree persons by the coercion necessary to uphold such a system. Secondly, it enables him to avoid begging the question against ‘immoralists’ like Nietzsche, whose opposition to systems of reciprocal non-domination is at least partly motivated by the losses of social freedom of choice they entail for those they deem to be worthy of dominating others. (shrink)

This article undertakes a republican analysis of power in the workplace and labour market in order to determine whether workers are dominated by employers. Civic republicans usually take domination to be subjection to an arbitrary power to interfere with choice. But when faced with labour disputes over what choices it is normal for workers to make for themselves, these accounts of domination struggle to determine whether employers possess the power to interfere. I propose an alternative capabilitarian conception of domination as (...) the arbitrary power to determine access to capabilities necessary for relationships of equality between citizens. This approach allows us to diagnose domination in the workplace and the labour market but does not capture unfreedom arising from the wider socio-structural position of workers. Thus, I supplement this capabilitarian account of the domination of workers with a structural account of dominating power, which reveals a richer set of conditions under which employers dominate workers. (shrink)

This work assesses the relation between the observance of the desiderata that constitute the formal conceptions of the rule of law and the promotion of the freedom of the legal subjects. La presente obra evalúa la idea según la cual el rule of law promueve de un modo u otro la libertad en los sujetos jurídicos. Empleando el pensamiento de John Rawls y apoyándose en la obra de Lon L. Fuller se pretende determinar con precisión cómo queda configurada la subjetividad (...) jurídica en un ordenamiento que cumpla con las exigencias del rule of law. Para ello, se realiza un recorrido por la descripción canónica del rule of law, entendido en su concepción formal. Con posterioridad, se ofrece una interpretación de la concepción de la libertad defendida por Rawls, que resulta muy cercana a la expuesta por Fuller. A partir del estudio detallado de ambos elementos, se ofrece un análisis crítico de los diferentes argumentos dirigidos a apoyar la idea de que el rule of law promueve la libertad, para terminar con una crítica de dichos argumentos. En rigor, lo que aporta el rule of law es la garantía del respeto a la racionalidad deliberativa del individuo. Este es un requisito de la libertad, pero carece por sí mismo de un valor moral destacable. Por tanto, resulta obligado restringir el efecto del rule of law al ámbito de la seguridad jurídica, y señalar el carácter ideológico de toda asignación de un valor moral que trascienda dicha seguridad. En las sociedades pluralistas, la especificación autoritativa de los criterios de justicia es esencial para el desarrollo de una cooperación estable. Sin embargo, esto no asegura ninguna protección moralmente relevante de la libertad. (shrink)

Para quienes tengan interés en la filosofía moral y política contemporánea la obra de John Rawls es sin discusión una parada necesaria. De hecho, la tesis de Robert Nozick según la cual resulta imposible hacer filosofía moral y política sin considerar el marco ofrecido por Rawls, aunque parezca extrema, resulta bastante acertada. En gran medida el impacto de la obra de Rawls radica en su interés por ofrecer una teoría sustantiva de la justicia, teoría que hundiendo sus raíces en la (...) tradición de la filosofía sea capaz de orientarnos al momento de abordar las discusiones contemporáneas sobre justicia social. -/- En los trabajos que componen este libro el lector podrá encontrar una discusión actualizada sobre aquellos elementos que definen la base moral y política que Rawls presentó como fundamento de su teoría de la justicia. Al mismo tiempo, estos ensayos intentan construir un puente entre la justicia como equidad y otras tradiciones de la filosofía moral y política contemporánea. Para lograr este último fin, varios de los trabajos que aquí se presentan consideran las ideas de reconocimiento y autorrespeto como claves de interpretación de la obra de Rawls. (shrink)

Socialist republicans advocate public ownership and control of the means of production in order to achieve the republican goal of a society without endemic domination. While civic republicanism is often attacked for its conservatism, the relatively neglected radical history of the tradition shows how a republican form of socialism provides powerful conceptual resources to critique capitalism for leaving workers and citizens dominated. This analysis supports a programme of public ownership and economic democracy intended to reduce domination in the workplace and (...) wider society. I defend this socialist republicanism from both the Marxist objection that it overlooks the impersonal nature of domination under capitalism and the left-liberal objection that property-owning democracy is sufficient to suppress dominating relationships. The resulting position identifies the need for more ambitious institutional grounds for republican liberty than is often supposed, while offering us a distinctive emancipatory justification for socialism. (shrink)

The idea that payment for research participation can be coercive appears widespread among research ethics committee members, researchers, and regulatory bodies. Yet analysis of the concept of coercion by philosophers and bioethicists has mostly concluded that payment does not coerce, because coercion necessarily involves threats, not offers. In this article we aim to resolve this disagreement by distinguishing between two distinct but overlapping concepts of coercion. Consent-undermining coercion marks out certain actions as impermissible and certain agreements as unenforceable. By contrast, (...) coercion as subjection indicates a way in which someone’s interests can be partially set back in virtue of being subject to another’s foreign will. While offers of payment do not normally constitute consent-undermining coercion, they do sometimes constitute coercion as subjection. We offer an analysis of coercion as subjection and propose three possible practical responses to worries about the coerciveness of payment. (shrink)

Among the most persuasive arguments against hate speech bans was made by Ronald Dworkin, who warned of the threat to political legitimacy posed by laws that deny those subject to them adequ...

My paper is on the republican version of patriotism and its justification, as developed most systematically by Philip Pettit and Maurizio Viroli. The essence of the justification is as follows: patriotism is to be viewed as valuable insofar as it is an indispensable instrument for the upholding of the central republican ideal, namely freedom understood as non-domination. My primary aim is to evaluate the normative force of this justification. In the first section, I introduce minimal descriptive definitions of the concepts (...) of patriotism and the patria. Second, I reconstruct the republican patria-ideal to which patriotism is linked to. In the third section, I reconstruct the republican justification of patriotism. Finally, I ask what we justify when we justify republican patriotism. Two views are prevalent in this regard. According to the first, republican patriotic motivation, similarly to its justification, ought to be instrumental itself too. I argue that this view is untenable, since it is in tension with the minimal definition of patriotism. The conclusion is that the other view – according to which the patriotic motivation ought to be of intrinsic character – possesses greater normative force. (shrink)

John Fischer challenges me to defend my arguments regarding the badness of death; I sharpen my position, but make some concessions, discussing the possibility of postmortem harm. In response to John Deigh, I defend the account of disgust given in Hiding from Humanity, together with the research of Paul Rozin that I follow there, I discuss Patrick Devlin's conservative position, agree that we need to object to its emphasis on solidarity, not only to its emphasis on disgust, and argue that (...) Deigh's statement of Devlin's position is too kind to Devlin. In response to Henry Richardson, I summarize my reasons for thinking that the classical social contract tradition cannot handle well the problems posed by the issue of justice for people with disabilities, and that even Rawls's position requires major modification if it is to do so. I explore differences between Richardson's position and my own on the issues of self-respect, liberty, and primary goods. (shrink)

في معية الإخفاقات الحضارية المتتالية للعقل العربي في عالمنا المعاصر؛ حيث تم تجريد الأشياء – والقضايا والسياسات والمواقف والقرارات والعلاقات – من معانيها، أو بالأحرى تم مسخها بمعانٍ زائفة تُلبي حاجات الزيف الممسك بتلابيب الواقع، واتسعت الفجوة بين كلٍ العقل ومنطقه، والتفكير ومبادئه، والعلم ومنهجه، والدين ورسالته، والإنسان وإنسانيته، وبين ماضي العربي وحاضره، ثم بين حاضره ومستقبله ... يغدو البحث عن معنى – باستقامة معنى «المعنى» وعقلانيته – محاولة أخيرة لإدراك الغاية من الوجود، وإنعاش قلب أوشك نبضه على التوقف، واستعادة (...) حياة أوشكت أسبابها على النفاد. ولا غرو، فالبحث عن المعنى غريزة إنسانية، وكُلنا في الوطن العربي هذا الكائن المسكين المُتحير، الباحث عن معنى الوجود والهوية، معنى الحياة ومعنى الموت؛ معنى الحرية ومعنى الكرامة؛ معنى السعادة ومعنى الحُزن؛ معنى الدين ومعنى الوطن؛ ... إلخ. هذا هو هدف الكتاب وفقًا عنوانه، لكن هدفه الأعمق هو إيقاظ العقل العربي المعاصر من سباته الدوجماطيقي الذي أقعده عن اللحاق بركب التقدم المعرفي، وأحاطه بأسيجة الموجب والقاطع والثابت في عالم تتسارع فيه وتائر التغير, وتنهار فيه الحواجز الفاصلة بين كثرة من الثنائيات المستقرة في أذهاننا، ومن ثم يأتي الكتاب كمحاولة، لا لطرح إجابات قاطعة يأباها المنطق، أو تدشين رؤية أحادية البُعد قد يراها البعض تشاؤمية، وإنما لترميم الداخل المهجور، والخارج المنظور، من خلال قراءة متأنية للأفكار والأحداث تسعى إلى الكشف عن أطياف التناقض المعتملة بدواخلها، والمستترة خلف مظاهر التسويق للوهم! (shrink)

This paper challenges one of the main contributions of Political Liberalism (PL), namely the burdens of judgment (BoJ), on the grounds that it is superfluous to the project of excluding matters of the good from politics and it makes PL susceptible to a scepticism objection. From Rawls’s PL, we can extract two arguments for epistemic restraint in the public realm. The first is a moral argument based on the principles of fairness and reciprocity. The second is an epistemic argument derived (...) from the idea of the insurmountability of BoJ. The second of these arguments, I contend, is superfluous for two reasons: (i) BoJ, as a descriptive claim cannot itself explain why citizens should uphold a form of toleration that requires them to honor their epistemic restraint in politics. (ii) The moral argument alone is sufficient to justify epistemic constraint in the public realm through the reasonable exercise of political power. -/- Moreover, acceptance of the BoJ is incompatible with subscribing to a reasonable comprehensive doctrine (RCD) with a degree of certainty that is required to be convinced of any such doctrine. The relation between BoJ and scepticism has been addressed before but these thinkers assume that it is the implication of BoJ namely, reasonable disagreement that entails scepticism. This paper lays new sceptical challenges at the doorstep of PL and these new challenges focus on the very idea of the insurmountability of BoJ. Furthermore, it argues that scepticism is not an appropriate epistemic commitment for PL as it is incompatible with the aim of freestanding political conception of justice. Also, it is subversive of the purpose of an overlapping consensus because the idea underpinning an overlapping consensus is that citizens should not only appreciate liberal political principles as reasonable but they should also accept them as true on the basis of their own religious or philosophical reasons. Provided that BoJ entails scepticism, BoJ makes citizens’ religious and philosophical truth claims utterly irrelevant to the stability of society. Accordingly, I argue that the Rawlsian account of reasonableness must relinquish the epistemic component, BoJ; instead it should articulate how the moral component of reasonableness entails the principles of epistemic restraint in politics and acting from public reasons. (shrink)

Foundations of a Free Society brings together some of the most knowledgeable Ayn Rand scholars and proponents of her philosophy, as well as notable critics, putting them in conversation with other intellectuals who also see themselves as defenders of capitalism and individual liberty. United by the view that there is something importantly right—though perhaps also much wrong—in Rand’s political philosophy, contributors reflect on her views with the hope of furthering our understandings of what sort of society is best and why. (...) The volume provides a robust elaboration and defense of the foundation of Rand’s political philosophy in the principle that force paralyzes and negates the functioning of reason; it offers an in-depth scholarly discussion of Rand’s view on the nature of individual rights and the role of government in defending them; it deals extensively with the similarities and differences between Rand’s thought and the libertarian tradition (to which she is often assimilated) and objections to her positions arising from this tradition; it explores Rand’s relation to the classical liberal tradition, specifically with regard to her defense of freedom of the intellect; and it discusses her views on the free market, with special attention to the relation between these views and those of the Austrian school of economics. (shrink)

Le rapport issu de la commission Bouchard-Taylor qualifie la laïcité qui s’est implantée au Québec comme étant « plus libérale que républicaine », car elle permet à tous les citoyens « d’exprimer leurs convictions religieuses dans la mesure où cette expression n’entrave pas les droits et libertés d’autrui ». Les régimes républicains y sont présentés comme ceux qui refoulent les différences ethnoculturelles, « en les laissant en marge », tandis que le multiculturalisme accorderait une place prioritaire à la diversité. Dans (...) cet essai, je présente la relation entre le républicanisme et le multiculturalisme sous un éclairage différent. (shrink)

This book is the first comprehensive study of Plato’s conception of justice. The universality of human rights and the universality of human dignity, which is recognised as their source, are among the crucial philosophical problems in modern-day legal orders and in contemporary culture in general. If dignity is genuinely universal, then human beings also possessed it in ancient times. Plato not only perceived human dignity, but a recognition of dignity is also visible in his conception of justice, which forms the (...) core of his philosophy. Plato’s Republic is consistently interpreted here as a treatise on justice, relating to an individual and not to the state. The famous myth of the cave is a story about education taking place in the world here and now. The best activity is not contemplation, but acting for the benefit of others. Not ideas, but individuals are the proper objects of love. Plato’s philosophy may provide foundations for modern-day human rights protection rather than for totalitarian orders. (shrink)

Admirers of Robert Bresson often remark on the commitments he shares with the philosopher and activist Simone Weil. Both stubbornly idiosyncratic, they subscribe to what modernists call “a poetics of impersonality”: a deep desire to shed the ego and find some space empty of will, intention and even consciousness. Bresson pursued this ideal through his anti-theatrical practice, his resistance to expression and interpretation, and his war against “acting.” In Weil's religious thinking, the possibility of achieving a state of automatism in (...) the soul, and thus leaving room for God to occupy all, was central. “Decreation,” her term for this principle, sounds like a will to suicide but she explains it as motivated by love. Bresson's writerly films – the Bernanos adaptations – and Au hasard Balthazar – take as their theme the problem of grace. As in Weil, the path to grace goes through an acceptance of brutal necessity and incomprehensible accident. This is also the conclusion of Rossellini's Europa ’51. While André Bazin is a thinker with a keen sensitivity to grace and spiritual accident – his interest in depth of field is motivated by a desire to keep the free exercise of chance in play – his notion of love is more compassionate than anything we meet in Weil, Bresson or Rossellini. As Truffaut remarked, Bazin is a Christian from the days before the Fall. (shrink)

Theories of domination are primarily attempts to understand the value of justice, freedom, and equality by examining cases where they are absent. Such theories seek to clarify and systematize our judgments about what it is to be weak against uncontrolled strength, i.e., about what it is to be vulnerable, degraded, and defenseless against unrestrained power. -/- Much contemporary disagreement about domination involves competing answers to three questions: (1) Who, or what, can dominate? (2) Is it possible to dominate merely by (...) having power with a certain structure, or is domination an exercise or an abuse of power? (3) Exercised or unexercised, what kind of power is domination? The remainder of this entry will address each of these questions in turn, then conclude with a survey of how the idea of domination has been used in recent applied ethical theory. It will become clear as we examine competing answers to these three questions that different theorists have very different ideas of why, exactly, we need a theory of domination. There may be wide agreement that we need the idea of domination to make sense of unjust power relations, but unjust power relations are wildly varied, and theorists of domination disagree not only about which varieties most need to be understood, but about how theorizing domination helps us to understand them. (shrink)

When, if ever, is paternalism justified? I defend the principle that paternalism is justified only if it is neutral, that is, the motivation for it is compatible with all conceptions of the good life. Three other principles of paternalism are examined. The balancing view says that we must balance the values of liberty and well-being against each other and that paternalism is justified only if well-being outweighs liberty. The consent principle says that paternalism is justified only if consented to. The (...) voluntariness principle says that intervention is justified only when the conduct in question is substantially nonvoluntary. These three views are either implausible, plausible only if they are supplemented with the neutrality principle, or plausible only because they already presuppose that principle. (shrink)

En este trabajo, se pretende realizar una lectura del pensamiento de Feuerbach para poder desentrañar el objetivo que perseguía con su obra. Asimismo se intentará explicar cómo la finalidad de la obra feuerbachiana se encuentra mejor defendido desde los ideales que se enmarcan en la filosofía política republicana, que con los de la liberal. Para ello, en primer lugar se analizará la histórica discusión sobre el concepto de libertad, tratando de ubicar a Feuerbach en alguno de ellos. Segundo, se intentará (...) desentrañar el particular objetivo del escrito del autor. Tercero se observará su propuesta ante el problema descubierto. En cuarto lugar se explicará por qué el liberalismo no es especialmente bueno para cumplir el objetivo feuerbachiano y se propondrá en sustitución el ideal republicano para alcanzarlo. Quinto se explicarán las consecuencias que acarrea para el derecho penal seguir la filosofía política republicana Este artículose centrará en la cuestion referida al poder que queda en manos del soberano a los fines de organizar la sociedad. Como el derecho, y en particular el derecho penal, ocupa un lugar central entre los medios con los que cuenta el soberano para cumplir este fin, Feuerbach contrariamente a lo sostenido por teóricos de la época -como por ejemplo Hobbes e incluso el mismo Kant- intenta ponerle límites al poder del soberano, a los fines de garantizar la libertad y seguridad de los ciudadanos. Al autor le aterraba que éstos queden a merced o dominio de aquel. Creía que en tales circunstancias, los males que los ciudadanos podrían sufrir no podrían ser evitados. De ahí, que todo el moderno derecho penal liberal encuentre su finalidad en la puesta de límites al poder punitivo del Estado. (shrink)

Whistleblowing is the public disclosure of information with the purpose of revealing wrongdoings and abuses of power that harm the public interest. This book presents a comprehensive theory of whistleblowing: it defines the concept, reconstructs its origins, discusses it within the current ethical debate, and elaborates a justification of unauthorized disclosures. Its normative proposal is based on three criteria of permissibility: the communicative constraints, the intent, and the public interest conditions. The book distinguishes between two forms of whistleblowing, civic and (...) political, showing how they apply in the contexts of corruption and government secrecy. The book articulates a conception of public interest as a claim concerning the presumptive interest of the public. It argues that public interest is defined in opposition to corporate powers and its core content identified by the rights that are all-purposive for the distribution of social benefits. A crucial part of the proposal is dedicated to the impact of security policies and government secrecy on civil liberties. It argues that unrestrained secrecy limits the epistemic entitlement of citizens to know under which conditions their rights are limited by security policies and corporate interests. When citizens are denied the right to assess when these policies are prejudicial to their freedoms, whistleblowing represents a legitimate form of political agency that safeguards the fundamental rights of citizens against the threat of unrestrained secrecy by government power. Finally, the book contributes to shifting the attention of democratic theory from the procedures of consent formation to the mechanisms that guarantee the expression of dissent. It argues that whistleblowing is a distinctive form of civil dissent that contributes to the demands of institutional transparency in constitutional democracies and explores the idea that the way institutions are responsive to dissent determines the robustness of democracy, and ultimately, its legitimacy. What place dissenters have within a society, whether they enjoy personal safety, legal protection, and safe channels for their disclosure, are hallmarks of a good democracy, and of its sense of justice. (shrink)

In earlier work, I proposed and defended a formulation of physicalism that was distinctive in appealing to a carefully-defined relation of physical realization. Various philosophers have since presented challenges to this formulation. In the present paper, I aim to show that these challenges can be overcome.

Philosophers have traditionally treated physicalism as an empirically informed metaphysical thesis. This approach faces a well-known problem often referred to as Hempel’s dilemma: formulations of physicalism tend to be either false or indeterminate. The generally preferred strategy to address this problem involves an appeal to a hypothetical complete and ideal physical theory. After demonstrating that this strategy is not viable, I argue that we should redefine physicalism as an interdisciplinary research program seeking to explain the mental in terms of the (...) physical that encompasses the physical sciences, the psychological and brain sciences, and philosophy. Redefining physicalism in this way improves upon previous reconstructive accounts while avoiding the indeterminacy associated with orthodox forms of futurist physicalism. (shrink)

Espectros resignificados. China, España y el movimiento internacional contra el fascismo (1937-1939).

This chapter develops a civic republican approach to disability justice. It begins by articulating a republican account of liberty as nondomination before showing how such domination can shape the relationships of people with disabilities. This leads to a consideration of whether disability justice can be defined in terms of maximizing or sufficient nondomination. Instead, the chapter provides a civic framework within which republican disability justice can be understood, encompassing both the absence of oppressive relationships and the presence of capabilities of (...) special egalitarian concern. It also considers some specific normative implications of a republican account of disability justice—doubting the suitability of contestatory democracy but pointing toward the merits of self-education and universal basic income. Finally, the objection that this republican approach to disability justice unreasonably denigrates dependence is rebutted. (shrink)

Interview with Kai Nielsen conducted by David Rondel and Alex Sager.

Illusion of Freedom: Rousseau and Marx -/- Is capitalism the last stop of individual freedom? Liberal philosophers claim that even though free market economy may be unable to provide equality and justice, at least it guarantees personal freedom. If we think freedom cannot be reduced to the freedom of consumers to choose the brands they want or equal legal rights of abstract citizens, then we have a lot to learn from Rousseau and Marx, the first critics of liberalism. -/- Many (...) of us define freedom either as the absence of rules, thereby concluding that absolute freedom is impossible in any society or we reduce freedom to liberty in the “private sphere” which would be sufficient for us to feel free. What if we think of the chains in our feet as anklets and decorate them with flowers, as Rousseau suggests?The first step towards freedom is to grasp why we are not free now. -/- Rousseau and Marx, who explain the illusion of freedom which traps us in modern society put forward two different theses regarding the relationship of freedom to needs. According to Rousseau, as civilization increases desires and dependence, society gets corrupted and people lose their freedom without realising it. The precondition of freedom is getting rid of “artificial desires” and searching for a balance between abilities and needs. On the other hand, according to Marx, freedom can be achieved only when our needs increase and become humanised. The struggle to get rid of “commodity fetishism” which reduces all needs to the need for money, also enables us to overcome alienation. This book invites all readers who pursue the following questions to an intellectual journey: “Who are we? Where are we going? How can we become free?” . (shrink)

Freedom of thought has been lauded in political theory and celebrated in human rights discourse. But what kind of freedom is it? I propose that freedom of thought deserves status as a basic liberty, given the significance of thought to human life, the fundamental importance of freedom of thought in establishing and sustaining crucial rights and freedoms, and the value of being able to develop and experience one’s thoughts without undue influence from others.