Plato's confrontation with Dionysius I, the so-called “tyrant of Sicily,” became famous as a cautionary tale of the perils of offering unwelcome advice to a powerful prince. Within early modern England, this tale took on added currency in the context of humanists' ambitions to serve as counselors in the court of Henry VIII. The humanist scholar Thomas Elyot (1490–1546), who briefly and unsuccessfully served at Henry's court, re-created Plato's exchange with Dionysius I in his dramatic dialogue The Knowledge Whiche Maketh (...) a Wise Man (1533). In his dialogue, Elyot imagines Plato returning to Athens after his brief period of enslavement, where he meets the philosopher/rhetorician Aristippus. Aristippus challenges Plato by positing that Plato's dangerous words to Dionysius violated rhetorical tenets of propriety and timing. In the course of their extended exchange, two different versions of the rhetoric of counsel surface—one based on principles of philosophy and one based on strategic rhetoric. (shrink)

In chapters on the Gorgias and the Meno in his 1997 From Plato to Postmodernism, James Kasterly argues that an important point made in the Gorgias is that Socrates fails to persuade Callicles. Its lesson is that philosophers will never succeed in persuading nonphilosophers if they rely on dialectic, with its premises grounded in epistemology, and in the Meno, he finds a type of dialectic that functions rhetorically. In this new book, The Rhetoric of Plato's "Republic": Democracy and the Philosophical (...) Problem of Persuasion, Kastely builds on his earlier work. He reads the Republic as Plato's effort to address the implicit challenge posed by Socrates' defeat in the Gorgias. Plato's purpose in the... (shrink)

In Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes, Quentin Skinner argued, first, that Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy is best understood when placed within the context of the study of rhetoric in Early Modern England and, second, that Hobbes’s attitude toward rhetoric changed in the course of his career: that he passed from a period in which he embraced civic humanism, with its emphasis on rhetoric to one of adamantly rejecting rhetoric in the late 1630s and 1640s, only to reembrace rhetoric (...) in his Leviathan. In his Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Thomas Hobbes, Timothy Raylor challenges Skinner’s influential thesis, arguing for more continuity in Hobbes’s attitude toward... (shrink)

In this collection edited by Alan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer, scholars in communication, rhetoric and composition, and philosophy seek to “reread” Aristotle’s Rhetoric from a purely rhetorical perspective.

O artigo examina a relação entre paixão, democracia e deliberação no pensamento de Hobbes e no de Walzer. São apresentadas as razões pelas quais esses dois pensadores posicionam-se de forma crítica no concernente às deliberações no âmbito de governos democráticos. A relação entre razão e paixão é também examinada no interior do problema central de nosso estudo comparativo.

International in scope and featuring a diverse group of contributors, The Borders of Justice investigates the complexities of transitional justice that emerge from its “social embeddedness.” This original and provocative collection of essays, which stem from a collective research program on social justice undertaken by the Calcutta Research Group, confronts the concept and practices of justice. The editors and contributors question the relationship between geography, methodology, and justice—how and why justice is meted out differently in different places. Expanding on Michael (...) Walzer's idea of the “spheres of justice,” the contributors argue that justice is burdened with our notions of social realities and expectations, in addition to the influence of money, law, and government. Chapters provide close readings of Pascal, Plato and Marx, theories on global justice, the relationship between liberalism and multiculturalism, struggles of social injustice, and how and where we draw the borders of justice. (shrink)

Este artículo tiene como objetivo principal contrastar las teorías deJürgen Habermas y Michael Walzer en relación con las bondades e infortuniosde la ‘democracia deliberativa’, modelo que, en el caso habermasiano, se encauzaa superar al liberalismo clásico y al republicanismo cívico, dos concepcionestradicionales y con gran influencia en el pensamiento político actual. Elautor de Facticidad y validez le objetará al primer modelo que restringe el espaciopúblico a una racionalidad instrumental y a un Estado neutro encaminados asalvaguardar los intereses privados y (...) los derechos negativos. Al segundo, quelimita la acción política a una comprensión ética contextualizada y a una visiónidealista de las virtudes cívicas. Sostiene que ambas perspectivas son necesariaspero insuficientes para fortalecer los sistemas democráticos en sociedadessistémicas y multiculturales. Walzer, por su parte, ha puesto en tela de juicio elrumbo deliberativo habermasiano por cuanto lo considera un paradigma queciñe la acción política a la racionalidad argumentativa, sin tomar en cuenta lasotras prácticas sociales orientadas por la pasión, el coraje, la actitud competitivay los intereses.The aim of this article is to contrast the theories of Habermas andWalzer in relation to the benefits and misfortunes of deliberative democracy, a model that, for Habermas, is channeled to overcome classical liberalism and civic republicanism, the traditional main currents with great influence on the contemporary political thought. The author of Between facts and norms objected to the first model that it restricts the public space to an instrumental rationality and to a neutral State designed to safeguard private interests and individual rights. To the second, because it limits political action to a barely ethical understanding of an idealistic vision of civic virtues. Habermas argues that both perspectives are necessary but insufficient to strengthen democratic systems in systemic and multicultural societies. Walzer, meanwhile, has questioned the direction of Habermasian deliberative approach because he considers it as a paradigm that grasp political action only within the sphere of argumentative rationality, without taking into account other social practices guided by passion, courage, competitive attitudes and interests. (shrink)

O objetivo deste artigo é mostrar, segundo a teoria da justiça de Michael Walzer, o papel fundamental que as esferas da educação e da cidadania, em sua recíproca sustentação, devem representar para a obtenção de uma sociedade democrática justa. Para isto, será feita uma apresentação daquela teoria com uma reconstrução dos seus conceitos básicos. Após, será mostrado porque a cidadania e o Estado precisariam ser fortalecidos muito acima do padrão habitual das democracias existentes para cumprir adequadamente tal papel. Por (...) último, será proposto que a melhor chance de alcançar e sustentar o alto grau de solidariedade social da cidadania e do Estado que são exigidos para realizar concretamente aquela sociedade justa está em uma educação cívica democrática e comunitarista. (shrink)

La cuestión práctica más importante del relativismo ético es sin duda la legitimidad de las valoraciones morales respecto a sociedades con sistemas morales diferentes del sistema de quien emite el juido de valor. El comunitarismo de la última década1 representado en esta cuestión por M. Walzer ha cuestionado precisamente dicha legitimidad y ha abogado por un «enfoque interno» que parta de los criterios de que toda forma de vida es «correcta» si sevive «de manera fiel a las concepciones compartidas (...) por los miembros de la comunidad en cuestión»2, considerando que «no atender a los significados compartidos por nuestra comunidad es siempre obrar injustamente»3. Este particularismo radical adopta así un «enfoque interno» en el que el hecho mismo de la aceptación de determinados puntos de vista, opiniones y principios forma parte de la argumentación en defensa de una concepción moral específica, en contra del «enfoque externo» que mantiene la necesidad de prescindir de estos hechos. En esta última línea Hare, por ejemplo, ha rechazado que pueda demostrarse la inaceptabiidad de una teoría moral alegando su no adecuación a la opinión admitida, pues «las opiniones morales vigentes en un grupo social no tienen valor probatorio alguno en una filosofía moral cuya función es establecer cuestiones morales de alcauce universal. (shrink)

O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar uma reconstrução da teoria da justiça de Michael Walzer a partir de sua obra Esferas da justiça: uma defesa do pluralismo e da igualdade, que enfatiza apenas o pluralismo, destacando-se também o papel essencial da cidadania democrática na obtenção da igualdade. Para isto, será feita uma apresentação dos conceitos básicos daquele livro: a teoria pluralista dos bens, a autonomia das esferas da justiça a partir do significado social dos bens, as noções negativas de (...) predomínio e dominação e o ideal de igualdade complexa supostamente resultante daquela autonomia. Após, será analisada a crítica que aponta a insuficiência das esferas autônomas para a realização do projeto igualitário de Walzer e o risco de desigualdade a que ele se expõe, sustentando a necessidade da cidadania democrática para superá-lo. Finalmente, será mostrado como o próprio Walzer sempre adotou, ainda que sem desenvolvê-la, a ideia da cidadania democrática como o outro bastião indispensável da igualdade. (shrink)

It seems to me that we should aim at something very much like this today: protected spaces of many different sorts matched to the needs of the different tribes. Michael Walzer (1994)They [animals] are not brethren, they are not underlings, they are other Nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth. Henry Beston (1928).

"The more we learn about the history of mankind, the more we realize that there is no spontaneous generation in history but only a continuous shaping of new 'Forms' out of existing 'Matter.' Islamic philosophy is an interesting example of this process which constitutes the continuity of human civilization." Walzer concludes that Islamic thought, based on too narrow a concept of reason, failed where Greek philosophy had failed before it.--C. E. B.

O objetivo deste artigo é apresentar a relação entre Filosofia política e democracia na obra de Michael Walzer, a partir da influência exercida sobre ele por John Rawls. Para fazer isto, será feita uma breve apresentação das visões de Rawls sobre aquela relação. Após, será mostrado que Walzer corrobora e amplia a concepção de Rawls. Por último, será descrito o papel de crítica imanente que Walzer atribui à Filosofia política nas democracias contemporâneas, trazendo-a da pretensão de guia (...) da política, baseada na contemplação privilegiada de qualquer suposta ordem transcendente e vinculante, para um papel de engajamento comprometido apenas com a própria ordem democrática. (shrink)

The paper is concerned with the role of spatial delineations in Walzer’s theory of distributive justice. The argument put forward here is that Walzer’s concept of the existence of spheres of justice requires socio-spatial and territorial differentiations as a precondition. Walzer himself analyses different socially delineated places of distribution, such as the market (i.e. the economy) or the school (i.e. education). This contribution concentrates on the problem of distribution of political membership, advancing the thesis that we cannot (...) understand Walzer’s approach without giving consideration to his concept of concrete delimited territory. According to Walzer, distributive justice needs the framework of the territorial state, but this entity should not be identified with a centralized, ethnically homogenous nation state: One of the merits of Walzer’s theory of justice is to draw attention to the value of the locale. (shrink)

O artigo pretende analisar e sugerir uma saída para o paradoxo democrático, o dilema moral constitutivo entre a soberania nacional do Estado democrático liberal e o reconhecimento dos direitos humanos dos estrangeiros, apontado por Donatella Di Cesare. Para isso, serão reconstruídos o referido paradoxo, a partir das críticas da autora a Michael Walzer e David Miller, e a solução apontada por ela, que envolve a superação da ordem estadocêntrica e a criação de uma comunidade política que não seja centrada (...) na identidade nacional. Em seguida, serão sucessivamente analisadas as posições de tais autores, mostrando-se que as críticas feitas por Di Cesare não correspondem aos trabalhos desenvolvidos por eles sobre comunidade política e identidade nacional. Por fim, será sugerido que há congruências entre esses três autores que poderiam ajudar na construção conceitual de um conceito de comunidade política capaz de oferecer uma direção inicial de saída do paradoxo democrático. (shrink)

Nesta comunicação exploro aquele que deve ser o objecto e o âmbito de uma teoria de justiça. Da resposta a estas duas questões depende a possibilidade de definir princípios de justiça que concebam uma sociedade justa. Assim, tenho em consideração as propostas sobre o objecto e o âmbito da justiça presentes nas teorias de Nozick (libertária), de Rawls (igualitária) e de Walzer (comunitária) e avalio topicamente cada uma das posições. Concluo tentando responder à questão: qual deve ser o objecto (...) e o âmbito de uma teoria de justiça? (shrink)

Ces dernières années, la philosophie politique a trouvé un second souffle. Depuis la parution de la Théorie de la justice, au début des années 1970, et sous le double mouvement du déclin des idéologies et de l'écroulement du système communiste, de nouveaux débats sont apparus. Comment combiner le respect des droits individuels et le maintien d'une ambition collective? Comment intégrer au libéralisme politique un projet communautaire? Quelles doivent être les relations entre l'individu, l'Etat et la société? Comment répondre au malaise (...) et au déficit de légitimité que connaissent les démocraties occidentales? Ces interrogations ont permis d'imposer des voix nouvelles - celles de John Rawls ou de Jürgen Habermas -, mais aussi, plus récemment, celles des auteurs dits " communautariens " : Michaël Sandel, Michaël Walzer et Charles Taylor. Ces discussions sont également l'occasion d'en revenir aux fondateurs de la pensée politique contemporaine et de vérifier ainsi l'actualité de la réflexion d'Emmanuel Kant, de Friedrich Hegel, de Karl Marx, d'Alexis de Tocqueville, de John Stuart Mill ou, plus près de nous, de Sigmund Freud et de Max Weber pour penser les problèmes politiques et spirituels de notre temps. Cet ouvrage aimerait donner un aperçu des problématiques actuelles de la théorie politique. Pour la sélection des auteurs étudiés, la question de la liberté a servi de fil conducteur. (shrink)

The evolution of Habermas follows that of Rawls in Political Liberalism, where the principles of justice are traced back to a historical background and no longer derived from an original position as in A Theory of Justice; and even Rawls, curiously enough, while he made his own the criticism in a broad sense Hegelian, of opponents such as Walzer,continued not to recognize the debt he now owed them. Appropriations of the opponents' objections, withdrawals disguised as victories, ad hoc distinctions (...) and so on, are common staple in disputes between thinkers, phenomena that it would be too easy to dismiss with accusations of tendentiousness or lack of rigour. -/- . (shrink)

Books reviewed:Mark Munn, The School of History: Athens in the Age of SocratesKathryn Morgan, Myth and Philosophy from the Presocratics to PlatoMary Margaret McCabe, Plato and his Predecessors: The Dramatization of ReasonJohannes M. van Ophuijsen, Plato and Platonism.Nicholas D. Smith and Paul B. Woodruff, Reason and Religion in Socratic PhilosophyAndrew Gregory, Plato's Philosophy of ScienceHugh H. Benson, Socratic Wisdom: The Model of Knowledge in Plato's Early DialoguesAngela Hobbs, Plato and the Hero: Courage, Manliness and the Impersonal GoodMelissa Lane, Plato's Progeny: (...) How Plato and Socrates still Captivate the Modern MindAlan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer, Rereading Aristotle's RhetoricEdward Grant, God and Reason in the Middle AgesJohn Marenbon and Giovanni Orlandi, Peter Abelard’s Collationes.Terence Penelhum, Themes in Hume: The Self, the Will, ReligionStephan R. Palmquist, Kant's Critical ReligionJohn Lippitt, Humour and Irony in Kierkegaard's ThoughtDavid B. Allison, Reading the New Nietzsche: The Birth of Tragedy, The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, On the Genealogy of MoralsMaurice Blondel, The Idealist Illusion and Other EssaysDaniel O. Dahlstrom, Heidegger's Concept of TruthLawrence J. Hatab, Ethics and Finitude: Heideggerian Contributions to Moral PhilosophyMichel Foucault, L’Herméneutique du sujet: Cours au Collège de France W. W. Meissner, Freud and PsychoanalysisScott Sturgeon, Matters of Mind: Consciousness, Reason and NatureDavid Jopling, Self–Knowledge and the SelfDouglas C. Langston, Conscience and Other Virtues: From Bonaventure to MacIntyreMartin Rhonheimer, Natural Law and Practical Reason: A Thomist View of Moral AutonomyPhilippa Foot, Natural GoodnessJohn Leslie, Infinite Minds. A Philosophical CosmologyBerys Gaut and Dominic McIver Lopes, The Routledge Companion to AestheticsPaul Kurtz, Embracing the Power of HumanismJohn Gray, Two Faces of LiberalismDonald A. Hay and Alan Kreider, Christianity and the Culture of Economics.Marcia Bunge, The Child in Christian ThoughtDean Hoge, Willian Dinges, Mary Johnson and Juan Gonzales, Young Adult CatholicsStephan C. Barton, Life Together: Family, Sexuality and Community in the New Testament and TodayColin E. Gunton, Stephen R. Holmes and Murray A. Rae, The Practice of Theology: A ReaderDavid Jobling, Tina Pippin and Ronald Schleifer, The Postmodern Bible ReaderThomas L. Martin, Reading the Classics with C. S. Lewis. (shrink)

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to introduce an interpretive approach to examining the relation between information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the good life, based on Michael Walzer's view of (connected) social criticism.Design/methodology/approachThrough a discussion of Michael Walzer's view of social criticism, an interpretive approach to normative analysis of ICTs and the good life is introduced. The paper also offers an additional argument for the indispensability of prudential appraisals of ICTs in normative analysis of ICTs and the (...) good life, which in turn strengthens the basis for the Walzerian approach proposed in the paper.FindingsIt is argued that an interpretive approach to normative analysis of ICTs and the good life, i.e. the Walzerian approach, is as viable as – if not superior to – a theory‐driven approach. It is also argued that actual appraisals of ICTs and the good life must be taken into account in the normative analysis.Originality/valueIt is only recently that “the good life” has become more visible in normative analysis of ICTs. This paper continues this relatively new line of research and proposes an alternative approach – as opposed to a theory‐driven approach – to this research programme. (shrink)

This book discusses the concept of immanent critique, i. e. whether there is a form of critique which neither just applies empirically accepted standards nor independently justified norms but rather reconstructs norms which are immanent to social practices. -/- It surveys both political theories of criticism (Walzer, Taylor, MacIntyre) and contemporary critical theories (Habermas, Honneth) for how they describe such forms of critique and develops a new model of immanent critique. For this purpose, it takes up both contemporary social (...) ontology theories and the discussion about rule-following. The book argues that we can speak of immanent rules as far as persons can practically recognize each other as members of rule-governed practices if they attribute each other defeasible normative authority. -/- Finally, it describes the consequences of the adoption of such a model for our description of a practice of critique and analyzes both first-order immanent critique and the second-order critique of reification. (shrink)

Anthony E. Hartle brings a unique perspective to the work at hand as a philosopher and as a military officer who has seen combat. His task is aptly summarized in the quotation from Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars with which he introduces his topic: "For war is the hardest place; if comprehensive and consistent moral judgments are possible there, they are possible everywhere." In this work Hartle, who is a professor of philosophy and a member of the permanent (...) faculty at the United States Military Academy at West Point, labors valiantly to construct a coherent military ethic for the hardest place. As a result of his position this work has more than academic interest. Presumably, the future elite leaders of the United States Army and, through them, many others are being trained according to its principles. (shrink)

The rapid expansion of Big Tech companies into various societal domains (e.g., health, education, and agriculture) over the past decade has led to increasing concerns among governments, regulators, scholars, and civil society. While existing theoretical frameworks—often revolving around privacy and data protection, or market and platform power—have shed light on important aspects of Big Tech expansionism, there are other risks that these frameworks cannot fully capture. In response, this editorial proposes an alternative theoretical framework based on the notion of sphere (...) transgressions, which draws on political philosopher Michael Walzer's theory of justice. The editorial not only introduces the sphere transgressions framework, but it also highlights its potential to generate novel research questions. Furthermore, this editorial introduces eight articles and one commentary from a group of interdisciplinary scholars that critically examine Big Tech expansionism by reflecting on this expansionism from the perspective of different societal spheres or by engaging with the sphere transgressions framework itself. (shrink)

This paper proposes a theory of institutional pluralism to deal with the question whether and to what extent limits should be placed on the market. It reconceives the pluralist position as it was presented by Michael Walzer and others in several respects. First, it argues that the options on the institutional menu should not be principles of distribution but rather economic mechanisms or ‘modes of provision’. This marks a shift from a distributive to a provisional logic. Second, it argues (...) that we should drop the assumption that any good should only be placed in one sphere, i.e. distributed according to one distributive principle. This marks a shift to ‘complex pluralism’: for at least some goods it is appropriate that they are provided through the market and through one or more non-market alternatives simultaneously. Finally, it argues that the often used conventionalist justification should be traded for a capability approach to the moral evaluation of markets and non-market alternatives. Any institutional option on our menu has value to the extent that it enhances the morally relevant capabilities of the producers and/or consumers of the good that is to be provided. This approach will be illustrated with two examples of goods for which it yields complex pluralist conclusions: the provision of care and the provision of media content. (shrink)

What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings, 2/e, brings together many of the most prominent and influential writings on the topic of justice, providing an exceptionally comprehensive introduction to the subject. It places special emphasis on "social contract" theories of justice, both ancient and modern, culminating in the monumental work of John Rawls and various responses to his work. It also deals with questions of retributive justice and punishment, topics that are often excluded from other volumes on justice. This new (...) edition features expanded and updated readings on justice and punishment and includes more recent responses to John Rawls's work. Part One of the book features selections from classical sources including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Mencius, as well as excerpts from the Bible and the Koran. Part Two provides readings on the state of nature and the social contract, from Hobbes and Locke to Rawls, Nozick, Gauthier, and Baier. Part Three includes the Declaration of Independence and Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in addition to selections on property and social justice by Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Engels, Marx, Mill, and several contemporary authors. Part Four offers a wide variety of readings on punishment, several of which address the death penalty. Part Five begins with selections from Rawls's work and includes responses from Dworkin, Nagel, Nozick, MacIntyre, Sandel, Walzer, Okin, and Rawls himself. Each selection is preceded by a brief introduction and each of the five parts opens with an introduction. The volume is further enhanced by a general introduction and an updated and extensive bibliography. Ideal for a wide variety of courses including social and political philosophy, ethics, philosophy of law, and contemporary moral problems, What Is Justice?, 2/e, does not assume any philosophical or specialized background. It is also engaging reading for anyone interested in justice. (shrink)

What is Justice? Classic and Contemporary Readings, 2/e, brings together many of the most prominent and influential writings on the topic of justice, providing an exceptionally comprehensive introduction to the subject. It places special emphasis on "social contract" theories of justice, both ancient and modern, culminating in the monumental work of John Rawls and various responses to his work. It also deals with questions of retributive justice and punishment, topics that are often excluded from other volumes on justice. This new (...) edition features expanded and updated readings on justice and punishment and includes more recent responses to John Rawls's work. Part One of the book features selections from classical sources including Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Mencius, as well as excerpts from the Bible and the Koran. Part Two provides readings on the state of nature and the social contract, from Hobbes and Locke to Rawls, Nozick, Gauthier, and Baier. Part Three includes the Declaration of Independence and Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in addition to selections on property and social justice by Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Engels, Marx, Mill, and several contemporary authors. Part Four offers a wide variety of readings on punishment, several of which address the death penalty. Part Five begins with selections from Rawls's work and includes responses from Dworkin, Nagel, Nozick, MacIntyre, Sandel, Walzer, Okin, and Rawls himself. Each selection is preceded by a brief introduction and each of the five parts opens with an introduction. The volume is further enhanced by a general introduction and an updated and extensive bibliography. Ideal for a wide variety of courses including social and political philosophy, ethics, philosophy of law, and contemporary moral problems, What Is Justice?, 2/e, does not assume any philosophical or specialized background. It is also engaging reading for anyone interested in justice. (shrink)

Plato's views on the nature of the soul, by W.K.C. Guthrie.--Die Erneuerung der Philosophie in der Zeit Ciceros, von O. Gigon.--Gott und Seele im kaiserzeitlichen Denken, von W. Theiler.--Interprétations néo-platonisantes du livre VI de l'Énéide, par P. Courcelle.--Der Platonismus und die altchristliche Gedankenwelt, von J.H. Waszink.--Humanisme et christianisme chez Clément d'Alexandrie d'après le "Pédagogue," par H.I. Marrou.--Some aspects of Platonism in Islamic philosophy, by R. Walzer.

Trust and corporation (extracts) / by F.W. Maitland -- Respublica Christiana -- by J.N. Figgis -- Society and state / by R.M. MacIver -- The discredited state / by E. Barker -- Conflicting social obligations / by G.D.H. Cole -- Community is a process / by M.P. Follett -- The eruption of the group / by E. Barker -- The masses in a representative democracy / by M. Oakeshott -- The atavism of social justice / by F.A. von Hayek -- (...) Collective entities and moral rights / by V. van Dyke -- Capitalism, citizenship and community / by S. Macedo -- Liberalism and the politicization of ethnicity / by W. Kymlicka -- Are there any cultural rights? / by C. Kukathas -- The civil society argument / by M. Walzer. (shrink)

Agresja putinowskiej Rosji na Ukrainę postawiła wobec dramatycznego wyzwania nobliwą doktrynę non‑violence. Zgodnie ze sformułowanym w latach 80. XX wieku wywodem antysowieckiego dysydenta rosyjskiego Władimira Bukowskiego to nie wojna jest przeciwieństwem pokoju, lecz przemoc, a do jej powstrzymania niekiedy konieczny jest zbrojny opór, czyli prowadzenie wojny. Według Clausewitza do wywołania stanu wojny nie wystarczy militarna agresja, lecz konieczne jest przeciwstawienie się jej, czyli aktywna obrona ze strony napadniętego, chcąc zatem uniknąć wojny, nie należy stawiać oporu agresorowi. Agresja na Ukrainę złamała (...) dwie zasady prowadzenia wojen: ius ad bellum i ius in bello. Według typologii Michaela Walzera jest to zatem niesprawiedliwa wojna prowadzona niesprawiedliwymi metodami, więc przeciwstawianie się jej, także militarne, jest prowadzeniem wojny sprawiedliwej. Zgodnie z analizą Slavoja Žižka tworzy to klarowną z etycznego punktu widzenia sytuację, zło jest łatwo identyfikowalne, a przeciwstawienie się mu stanowi etyczny obowiązek. Według filozofa Étienne’a Balibara w tej sytuacji pacyfizm nie jest żadną opcją. Helplessness as Acquiescence to Evil The aggression of Putin’s Russia towards Ukraine has posed a dramatic challenge to the noble doctrine of non-violence. In line with an argument made in the 1980s by anti-Soviet Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, war is not the opposite of peace; instead, violence is. Armed resistance, or warfare, is sometimes necessary to stop violence. According to Clausewitz, military aggression is insufficient to evoke a state of war; in its place, it is necessary to oppose aggression, i.e., actively mount a defense by the attacked party, thereby avoiding war requires not resisting the aggressor. However, the aggression against Ukraine broke two tenets of warfare: ius ad bellum and ius in bello. According to Michael Walzer’s typology, it is an unjust war waged by unjust methods, so resisting it, including militarily, amounts to waging a just war. According to Slavoj Žižek’s analysis, this establishes an ethically clear situation: evil is easily identifiable, and opposing it is an ethical duty. According to the philosopher Étienne Balibar, pacifism is not an option in such a situation. (shrink)

Neste começo de Milénio são diversas as vozes que exigem uma mudança no curso da globalização económica e informática, tal como a mesma se está produzindo, de modo a que a mesma possa ser orientada eticamente. Por isso, a autora começa por constatar não só a indispensabilidade de uma ética global, mas também a dificuldade em a construir num mundo tão profundamente marcado pela diversidade cultural. O artigo analisa num primeiro momento três caminhos possíveis para construir essa ética global: o (...) hermenéutico-coerencial (Rawls), o crítico-social imanente (Walzer), a pragmática transcendental (Apel). Por último propõe um quarto caminho, o qual toma o melhor dos outros três procurando superá-los a partir da ideia do reconhecimento recíproco entendida a partir da tradição lógico-formal socrática e da tradição da Aliança. /// At the beginning of a New Milennium, different voices proclaim the need for a change in the process of globalization as it is been produced, asserting the importance of giving to it an ethical orientation. A global ethic becomes thus necessary. But the construction of such an ethic is not an easy task in a world marked by a deep cultural diversity. The article analyses in a first moment three possible ways for the construction of such a global ethic: the hermeneutical-coherential (Rawls), the critical-social immanent (Walzer), the transcendental pragmatic (Apel). The author proposes finally a fourth way which takes the best of the other three and tries to overcome them from the idea of the mutual acknowledgement understood from the Socratic tradition and from the tradition of the Covenant. (shrink)

Muchas personas pobres y oprimidas dejan sus paísesen el tercer mundo para veniralas ricas sociedades occidentales. Este artículo sostiene que hay pocas justificaciones para mantenerlos fuera. Su inspiración abreva de tres aproximaciones contemporáneas a la teoría política-la de Rawls, la de Nozick y el utilitarismo para construir argumentos a favor de la apertura de fronteras. El hecho de que, a pesar de sus significativos desacuerdos en otros temas, en esta materia las tres teorías converjan en las mismas conclusiones, fortalece el (...) argumento a favor de la apertura de fronteras y revela su fundamentación en nuestro compromiso en respetar a todos los seres humanos como personas morales libres e iguales. La parte final del ensayo considera los argumentos comunitaristas que objetan la anterior conclusión, en especial los formulados por Michael Walzer. (shrink)

:In his famous book Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer articulates a thesis he calls the “Moral Equality of Soldiers,” namely, the principle that combatants have an equal right to kill other combatants in war, regardless of the justice of the cause for which they are fighting. The Moral Equality Thesis, as I shall call it, is an essential component of traditional Just War Theory, in that it provides the basis for distinguishing the jus in bello from the jus (...) ad bellum. It also plays a crucial role in identifying the nature of the difference between combatants and civilians. The Moral Equality Thesis has recently come under attack by scholars of Just War Theory, notably philosopher Jeff McMahan, on the grounds that killing for immoral purposes cannot be justified, and so it cannot be true that combatants all have an equal right to kill, regardless of the justice of their cause. In this essay, I defend the Moral Equality Thesis in its traditional formulation. Without it, I argue, the rule of law would not apply in war. The failure to recognize the equal right of combatants to kill in war, I suggest, creates an inconsistency between the rules of war and basic concepts in the law and morality of self-defense, an inconsistency that McMahan himself would think undesirable. I argue that McMahan’s argument applies more compellingly to armed conflict in asymmetrical warfare. Arguably, the Moral Equality Thesis does not apply in an armed conflict between combatants and unlawful combatants. In that context, the divergence from the law and morality of self-defense is less of a concern. View HTML Send article to KindleTo send this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply. Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.KILLING IN WAR AND THE MORAL EQUALITY THESISVolume 32, Issue 2Claire Finkelstein DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052516000169Your Kindle email address Please provide your Kindle [email protected]@kindle.com Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Send article to Dropbox To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox. KILLING IN WAR AND THE MORAL EQUALITY THESISVolume 32, Issue 2Claire Finkelstein DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052516000169Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Send article to Google Drive To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive. KILLING IN WAR AND THE MORAL EQUALITY THESISVolume 32, Issue 2Claire Finkelstein DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052516000169Available formats PDF Please select a format to send. By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services. Please confirm that you accept the terms of use. Cancel Send ×Export citation Request permission. (shrink)

Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu is the Zulu version of a traditional African aphorism . Although with considerable loss of culture-specific meaning, it can be translated as: “A human being is a human being through other human beings.” Still, its meaning can be interpreted in various ways of which I would like to highlight only two, in accordance with the grammar of the central concept ‘Ubuntu’ which denotes both a state of being and one of becoming.Firstly, it can be interpreted as a (...) statement of fact about the human condition, i.e. as a descriptive claim about the social nature of human being and personal identity; even the constitutive relation between alterity and identity. Secondly, it can also be interpreted as a value-judgement, i.e. as a normative appreciation of social difference and human diversity; even as an imperative to expose ourselves to others, to encounter the difference of their humanness, in order to fully become our own. The meaning would then be — to paraphrase a translation of Ramose : To be human is to affirm one’s humanity by recognising the humanity of others in its infinite variety of content and form.CONCLUSION :The challenge of a philosophical understanding of the multi-cultural context of apartheid South Africa has still to be met. To meet this challenge is to try and trace the consequences of what it would mean if — to paraphrase Walzer — our crucial commonality is our particularity. Perhaps it will mean accepting that what we are and are becoming, our identity, escapes any reduction to the categories of the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ and eludes a dialectical ‘aufhebung’ of their difference. This may be the case if what we are and are becoming involves the paradox of being and becoming ever more different in the realisation of our self-sameness. Our African aphorism speaks of this paradox and, in so doing, it draws a limit to our philosophical understanding and provides us with a rule of conduct: Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu! (shrink)

In celebration of the centennial of the Institute of Philosophy of the Catholic University of Leuven, a series of lectures was organized to outline the evolution of various philosophical disciplines in the time span 1889-1989. The lcture on ethics was an attempt to depict the transition from foundational and universalist ethics into a hermeneutical type of ethics that is anti-foundational and particularistic. Such can be interpreted as a transition from modernity into post-modernity,or from ethics into post-ethics : it is the (...) abandonment of the belief that ethics might offer a rational legitimation of ethical principles, or that such principles might be shown to be universal dictates of reason. Several historical and philosophical aspects of this criticism of rationalistic ethics are traced and evaluated, in discussion with authors such as Nussbaum, Rorty, Walzer, and Lévi-Strauss. — 1. The post-modern rehabilitation of moral sensitivity correctly criticizes the poverty of a moral life that is only based on principles. However, it is shown that even loyalty to a particular person or group can only be of an ethical nature ifsome universality is presupposed. — 2. The post-modern rehabilitation of tradition is based on two arguments: moral judging can only occur within a particular way of life, and this particularism is the most efficient anti-dote against totalitarian powers of rationalization and homogenization. Nevertheless, it is evidenced that the universalism of human rights is needed to safeguard such particularism. — 3. Other motives in the criticismof a universalist ethical theory derive from the Wittgensteinian or Heideggerian rejection of humanism as a form of subjectivism or anthropocentrism. The final conclusion is that the particularity of ethos has an important role to playin the development of our moral sense, but that this role is essentially heuristic. Thisparticularity is the experiential matrix for a responsibility that is nevertheless of a universal nature. Ethics can never be equated with the articulation of a particular way of life, or ethos, because it needs the tension between facts and values. Without such atension it is reduced to a positivism of culture. The foundational questions should not be abandoned. They are not rationalistic abstractions precluding experience, but they are the reminders that our norms are norms, i.e. tasks to be fulfilled and not just actualsocial sentiments and preferences. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:CHARITY LOST: TBE SECtJLA'.RIZATfON OF THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT IN THE JUST-WAR TRADITION TIMOTHY M. RENICK Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia 0 N AUGUST 12, 1945, the city of Hiroshima still smoldered, and President Harry Truman addressed the American people : We have used [the atomic bomb] against those who have attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American (...) prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war.1 Truman and his military advisers had made a calculation. Japan was preparing for a last-ditch defense of the Japanese Islands. The prospect was ominous, to say the least. The United States had suffered eighty thousand casualties in the taking of the smaller and less protected Okinawa just two months earlier; 120,000 Japanese soldiers had been killed (and only ten-thousand taken prisoner). Strategists estimated that losses, both military and civilian, from a full scale battle for Japan itself would exceed one million. Surely the tens of thousands killed by exploding a bomb over Hiroshima was the lesser evil. Surely this was a proportionate act : fifty thousand lives traded for a million. As Winston Churchill wrote in support of Truman's decision: "To avert a vast, indefinite butchery... at the cost of a few explosions seemed, after all our toils and perils, a miracle of deliverance." 2 1 Michael Walzer, lust and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 1979), p.164. 2 Ibid., pp. 266-267. 441 442 TIMOTHY M. RENICK From an ethical perspective, however, the act was anything but a deliverance. I am not alone in this assessment. Advocates of the just-war tradition including Elizabeth Anscombe, Paul Ramsey, George Kennan, John Langan, and Michael Walzer have condemned the bombing of Hiroshima by means of a shared just-war argument.8 The argument goes as follows, and it is a good one. In times of war, many actions are likely to have both good and evil effects. One destroys an enemy's munitions factory (good effect) but kills an innocent child in the process (evil effect). The jus in bello of the just-war tradition, however, stipulates that an action which has a " double effect " is permissible if and only if: ( 1) it is discriminate (i.e., the actor aims only at the good effect and does not intend the evil effect, nor is the evil effect a means to the end, however good); and (2) it is proportionate (i.e., the good created by the act outweighs the bad).4 Now, the argument continues, Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima failed the first criterion. It was not a discriminate act because the evil effect (the killing of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians) was not unintended. In fact, the evil was the very means to the good end. Although Truman himself claimed to have selected Hiroshima as a target because it was "a war s See, for example, G. E. M. Anscombe, "Mr. Truman's Decision," in Ethics, Religion and Politics (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, 1981); M. Walzer "Supreme Emergency," in Just and Unjust Wars; and John Langan, "The American Hierarchy and Nuclear Weapons," Theological Studies 43 (1982) : 447-467. ' I utilize here a helpful shorthand version of the principle of double effect introduced by Paul Ramsey in War and the Christian Conscience (Durham, North Carolina: Duke, 1961). More frequently, the principle is rendered by means of four criteria: It is permissible to perform an act likely to have evil consequences if and only if (I) the act is good in itself or at least indifferent; (2) the direct effect is morally justified; (3) the actor aims only at the acceptable effect and does not intend the evil effect, nor is the evil effect a means to the end, however good ; and (4) there is in the good effect a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. The shortened version of the theory captures all components essential to my discussion and enhances clarity. I thus will make use of it throughout this essay. CHARITY AND... (shrink)

Is there such a thing called “Islamic philosophy”? If there is one, what is it? What does it mean for philosophy to be Islamic? How does Islamic philosophy differ from non-Islamic one? Why do some Muslim scholars reject philosophy, ban its instruction, and even scorn its proponents? The present article will address all these questions and seeks to offer a balanced perspective on controversial issues pertaining to philosophy in Islamic intellectual context, drawing upon authoritative, primary sources. The first section deals (...) with definition and terminology, including the disagreement among scholars over which of these is the best appellation: ‘Islamic philosophy’, ’Muslim philosophy’, or ’Arabic philosophy’. This will be followed by a discussion of the main sources of Islamic philosophy and its impacts, as well as the aims and benefits of studying philosophy according to its exponents. The final section provides a critical appraisal of the arguments for and against philosophy that have been put forward by its defenders and its critics. Furthermore, the article also discusses three current approaches to Islamic philosophy, namely the mystical- hermeneutical such as advocated by Leo Strauss and Henry Corbin, the historical- philological study such as practiced Richard Walzer and Dimitri Gutas, and the philosophical-analytical approach such as espoused by Oliver Leaman and Lenn E. Goodman. A final word about the challenges and prospect of Islamic philosophical studies is in order, taking into account recent developments in various parts of the world following revival of interest in Avicenna, Averroes and al-Ghazali. (shrink)