This paper deals with the question of how norms are to be conceived of in order to understand their role as guidelines for human action within various normative orders, particularly in the context of law on the one hand and conventional morality on the other. After some brief remarks on the history of the term “norm,” the author outlines the most significant general features of actually existing social norms, including legal and conventional norms, from which he arrives at two basic (...) requirements on an appropriate conception of such norms: the actuality and the normativity requirements. On this basis, he enters into a critical discussion of Kelsen's highly influential view of norms, arguing that this view is doomed to failure. In the last part of the paper, the author scrutinizes the more promising “practice theory of norms” by H.L.A. Hart, which, in his view, also suffers from some shortcomings, but may be modified in a way that leads to a conception of social norms providing us with a plausible explication of their actual existence and their normative force. (shrink)

In advanced societies, the sphere of work is subject to far-reaching changes which erode the system of gainful employment achieved in the second half of the last century, called ‘typical work’, i.e. full-time employment for an indefinite period with collectively negotiated wages and working conditions. This development has lead to a proliferation of various kinds of ‘atypical work’, most of which amount to poorly rewarded and insecure jobs with bad labour standards, and it has also weakened the traditional systems of (...) social security. As a result, most advanced societies have experienced a significant increase in social inequality and poverty in recent decades, even though their overall social wealth has constantly grown, a state of affairs which may be deemed to be not merely undesirable, but also unjust. This judgment, however, presupposes a particular conception of social justice that submits the economic order and the working world to certain normative demands. The paper aims to illuminate these demands by proceeding in three steps. First of all, it starts with recapitulating the conditions of the rise of typical work and the features of its decay. Secondly, it seeks to sketch a conception of social justice and its requirements on the working world, on the basis of which the present situation may be considered as unjust. Finally, it will deal with the question of how to reform the present working world in a way that, as far as possible, meets the requirements of justice. (shrink)

Ausgehend von einer minimalen, mit unterschiedlichen moralisehen Vorstellungen verträglichen Bestimmung des Begriffs der Moral, die im wesentlichen an eine Explikation von Stephan Körner anknüpft, wird die Möglichkeit einer rationalen, intersubjektiv konsensfähigen Begründung moralischer Standards erörtert. Dabei werden zwei verschiedenartige Konzeptionen einer solchen Begründung unterschieden, nämlich die individualistische und die universalistische Konzeption, denen jeweils verschiedene Konzepte praktischer Rationalität zugrundeliegen: das Konzept individueller und das Konzept universeller praktischer Rationalität. Während die individualistische Konzeption (z.B. vertreten von Hobbes, Hume, Mackie) eine Begründung der Moral (...) ausschließlich auf der Grundlage der realen individuellen Interessen der Menschen zu liefern versucht, gehen die Spielarten der universalistischen Konzeption (z.B. Kant, Utilitarismus, Rawls) stets von der idealisierten Vorstellung eines unparteilichen Standpunkts aus, von dem aus alle die gleichen Gründe haben, bestimmte Standards der Moral anzunehmen. Eine eingehende Diskussion des rational-individualistischen Modells führt zum Ergebnis, daß das Konzept individueller praktischer Rationalität für sich allein keine tragfähige Grundlage einer annehmbaren Vorstellung von Moral darstellt und daß eine angemessene Konzeption der rationalen Moralbegründung jedenfalls bestimmter Annahmen universeller Art bedarf. (shrink)

Ausgehend von einer minimalen, mit unterschiedlichen moralisehen Vorstellungen verträglichen Bestimmung des Begriffs der Moral, die im wesentlichen an eine Explikation von Stephan Körner anknüpft, wird die Möglichkeit einer rationalen, intersubjektiv konsensfähigen Begründung moralischer Standards erörtert. Dabei werden zwei verschiedenartige Konzeptionen einer solchen Begründung unterschieden, nämlich die individualistische und die universalistische Konzeption, denen jeweils verschiedene Konzepte praktischer Rationalität zugrundeliegen: das Konzept individueller und das Konzept universeller praktischer Rationalität. Während die individualistische Konzeption eine Begründung der Moral ausschließlich auf der Grundlage der realen (...) individuellen Interessen der Menschen zu liefern versucht, gehen die Spielarten der universalistischen Konzeption stets von der idealisierten Vorstellung eines unparteilichen Standpunkts aus, von dem aus alle die gleichen Gründe haben, bestimmte Standards der Moral anzunehmen. Eine eingehende Diskussion des rational-individualistischen Modells führt zum Ergebnis, daß das Konzept individueller praktischer Rationalität für sich allein keine tragfähige Grundlage einer annehmbaren Vorstellung von Moral darstellt und daß eine angemessene Konzeption der rationalen Moralbegründung jedenfalls bestimmter Annahmen universeller Art bedarf. (shrink)

Ausgehend von einer minimalen, mit unterschiedlichen moralisehen Vorstellungen verträglichen Bestimmung des Begriffs der Moral, die im wesentlichen an eine Explikation von Stephan Körner anknüpft, wird die Möglichkeit einer rationalen, intersubjektiv konsensfähigen Begründung moralischer Standards erörtert. Dabei werden zwei verschiedenartige Konzeptionen einer solchen Begründung unterschieden, nämlich die individualistische und die universalistische Konzeption, denen jeweils verschiedene Konzepte praktischer Rationalität zugrundeliegen: das Konzept individueller und das Konzept universeller praktischer Rationalität. Während die individualistische Konzeption eine Begründung der Moral ausschließlich auf der Grundlage der realen (...) individuellen Interessen der Menschen zu liefern versucht, gehen die Spielarten der universalistischen Konzeption stets von der idealisierten Vorstellung eines unparteilichen Standpunkts aus, von dem aus alle die gleichen Gründe haben, bestimmte Standards der Moral anzunehmen. Eine eingehende Diskussion des rational-individualistischen Modells führt zum Ergebnis, daß das Konzept individueller praktischer Rationalität für sich allein keine tragfähige Grundlage einer annehmbaren Vorstellung von Moral darstellt und daß eine angemessene Konzeption der rationalen Moralbegründung jedenfalls bestimmter Annahmen universeller Art bedarf. (shrink)

In this critical comment on Ernst Tugendhat's paper I dispute his view in two respects: the first refers to the concept, the second to the justification of human rights. As far as the concept of human rights is concerned, I argue that Tugendhat fails to notice that there are different kinds of human rights which are to be distinguished carefully. This conceptual failure prevents him from seeing that different human rights are justified by different reasons. While universal human rights can (...) be justified by the principle of universalization, community rights are based on the demands of social justice. (shrink)

Social power has many facets. This paper aims to illuminate some of these. First of all, it considers the general conceptual framework in which the concept of power is embedded. The author then elaborates on an analysis of the elementary concept of social power resulting in a proposal how to define power. Furthermore, the article deals with complex networks of power relations, namely constellations and structures of power. Another section focuses on some special aspects of the dynamics of power structures. (...) Finally, the author discusses the problem of legitimation of power. (shrink)

Since antiquity, prudence has been esteemed as an important guideline of reasonable human conduct and even as a cardinal virtue. There are, however, controversies about what it means and demands. In ancient and medieval philosophy, prudence was understood in a very wide sense as the comprehensive capacity to act in a well-considered way on the basis of best reasons, including moral reasons. By contrast, in modern philosophy it has often been interpreted in a much narrower sense as individuals' pursuit of (...) their own long-term good or rational self-interest, which does not necessarily rely on moral reasons and may lead to results contradictory to morality. On the assumption of this second, narrow concept, this paper aims at clarifying the role of prudence in the realm of practical reason and its relationship to morality. Any human action faces three questions regarding its reasonableness: We can ask whether or not it is expedient, i.e. suitable for achieving the pursued goals, whatever these goals may be, prudent, i.e. compatible with the actor's well-considered self-interest, and moral, i.e. acceptable from the viewpoint of moral impartiality and universality. Accordingly, one can differentiate between three levels of practical reason that include different guidelines for human conduct, but must be combined in order to come to a final judgement: expediency, prudence, and morality. These levels of practical reason differ, on the one hand, in the way they make use of individual preferences and, on the other, in the initial state of affairs to which they refer. Since the considerations at the different levels may result in contradicting directions, there must be a rule for combining them in a coherent end-result: this rule consists in a strict ranking order according to which morality overrules prudence that itself has priority over expediency. This conception of practical reason raises a number of questions as to the relationships between prudence and morality. The most frequently asked question in this context, namely the question of why one should be moral, is not discussed in the paper. Instead, it focuses on the internal connections between morality and prudence. One connection concerns the impact of morality on prudence. Morality may enter into prudential considerations in two ways: through internalized moral traits that may become part of a person's self-interest and through moral preferences that may restrict conflicting prudential motives to a certain degree. But there is also a connection between prudence and morality. On the assumption that a reasonable morality must aim at achieving a social order which is to the benefit of all people concerned from an impartial point of view , it is obvious that moral reasoning cannot do without prudential considerations. (shrink)

Shakespeare’s Hamlet best illustrates the problem with which a thoughtful and morally motivated person is confronted if crime, dishonesty and betrayal flourish in his or her social surroundings. The Danish prince finds himself in a genuine moral dilemma upon learning that his father, the former king, died not of natural causes but was insidiously murdered by his own brother, Hamlet’s uncle, Claudius, who now reigns over Denmark and shares the bed of the victim’s widow, Hamlet’s mother. Hamlet vacillates for some (...) time about what he ought to do. Finally, not without hesitancy and reluctance, he resolves to take revenge. To conceal his intentions, he acts as if he were crazy, astonishing the royal court with his altogether strange behavior. By doing so, however, he provokes the mistrust of King Claudius all the more. Claudius employs the Lord Chamberlain, Polonius, to whose daughter Ophelia Hamlet finds himself attracted, and two friends from Hamlet’s youth, Rosencrantz and Guildenstem, to spy on him. Acting on his emotions, Hamlet kills Polonius, an unprincipled and foolish schemer. This gives Claudius a welcome opportunity to get rid of Hamlet by banishing him, guarded by Rosencrantz and Guildenstem, to England, with the intention of having him murdered there . Yet Hamlet has become suspicious. In the luggage of his companions he finds the king’s letter with the order for his murder, and he replaces it with another, instructing those to whom it is addressed to kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He himself succeeds in escaping and returns to the Danish royal court. There he runs into Laertes, the son of Polonius and brother of Ophelia . Laertes, who cannot wait to take revenge for the deaths of his father and sister, becomes entangled by Claudius in a disgraceful attempt on Hamlet’s life. They persuade Hamlet into agreeing to a fencing match, not knowing that, whatever the outcome, he will die. For Laertes fences with a poisoned blade, and Claudius has a poisonous drink for Hamlet in reserve. The tragic end of the story is well known. (shrink)

The relationship between human rights and civil rights is twofold: on the one hand these rights can be viewed as forming a unity, and on the other there is a significant difference between them. The unity of human and civil rights is based upon the widely shared view that both are fundamental and universal rights, inherent to all human beings without regard to any contingent factors. This unity, however, is weakened by the division of our world into a plurality of (...) separate and independent states. It thus becomes plausible to assume that the citizens of a particular state are endowed with certain fundamental rights towards each other and their state, which are stronger than the rights existing between human beings in general. In this respect, human and civil rights are significantly different.However positive law may draw the line between human and civil rights, any such delimitation needs moral justification and is questionable from an ethical point of view. Moreover, there is reason to doubt that traditional approaches are still suitable in a world in which different societies are merging in their economic, political and ecological affairs. This article considers the ethical foundation for human and civil rights in an attempt to determine whether the traditional delimitation between them is in need of revision. An argument is made that human and civil rights differ in their moral justification. While human rights can be justified by the basic principle of a universal morality, namely the principle of universalization, civil rights are based on our conception of social justice. The justification for civil rights, however, proceeds from the assumption that any given society is a self-sufficient and independent community. Since this assumption no longer corresponds to the conditions of our modern world, the article concludes that a new understanding of basic rights is imperative. (shrink)

Rawls's difference principle, according to which social and economic inequalities are justified only if they achieve the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, has been often interpreted as a maximin-principle, in order to make it fit into the frame of welfare economics. Under this interpretation, however, the difference principle is subject to such grave objections, that it can hardly serve as a principle of justice. In order to avoid these difficulties, modifications of the difference principle have been proposed by Sen (...) and Rae. But these proposals don't lead to acceptable resolutions either. As an alternative, a new interpretation of Rawls's difference principle is proposed, which brings out the reasonable core of this principle and, at the same time, repairs the shortcomings of its earlier interpretations. (shrink)

Nozick's entitlement theory of justice is, besides Rawls's theory, one of the most widely discussed and intellectually most attractive conceptions within the field of contemporary political philosophy. Nozick's theory uses Locke's conception of the state of nature and of natural rights, and tries, starting from this point of view, to deliver a comprehensive systematisation of libertarian political ideals. This essay deals mainly with Nozick's conception of property rights. The argument is put forward that the concept of exclusive and unrestrictable ownership (...) of which Nozick makes use, doesn,t find any acceptable justification on the basis of his theory. (shrink)

Der Beitrag verfolgt das Ziel, die Entwicklung der Idee der Gerechtigkeit in der Neuzeit im Kontext des sozialen Wandels zu erhellen. Zu diesem Zweck wird nach einer einleitenden Erörterung des dieser Idee zugrundeliegenden Gerechtigkeitsbegriffs zuerst das Projekt einer vertragstheoretischen Begründung einer gerechten staatlichen Ordnung in der frühen Neuzeit vor dem Hintergrund des Herausbildung des modernen Staates behandelt. Im Anschluss werden die theoretischen Leitideen und gesellschaftlichen Triebkräfte des Kampfes um bürgerliche Freiheit und demokratische Teilhabe beleuchtet, wovon ausgehend dann die Entstehung der (...) heute vorherrschenden Vorstellung von sozialer Gerechtigkeit einer näheren Betrachtung unterzogen wird. Der Beitrag endet mit einigen Bemerkungen über die Gerechtigkeitsprobleme der Gegenwart und die künftigen Herausforderungen im Kampf um Gerechtigkeit. (shrink)