Global Limits: Immanuel Kant, International Relations, and a Critique of World Politics. By Mark F. N. Franke. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001. 265p. $59.50 cloth, $19.95 paper.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 881-881
Author(s):  
David A. Welch

It's not every day that you find a book that argues for its own irrelevance. This is not, of course, how Mark Franke characterizes his project in Global Limits—but it is the upshot, and he is admirably candid in putting together the individual pieces of the argument pointing to it.

1995 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Jabara Carley

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-268
Author(s):  
C. P. Darby

We must be aware that freedom from organic disease alone can not be our goal. The optimal functioning of the individual must be our aim, and that it occur in an environment conducive to a fuller life. We must be aware that man does not live by bread alone, nor by his antihypertensive pill alone. We must be citizens of the community, helping to make it a better place for the raising of our children, for a fuller educational opportunity, for the development of the arts and other cultural aspects which help raise man above the level of animal life. Thus, the making of a doctor almost begins at his mother's knee. Nurtured further by society and its educational and Cultural institutions, he is finally given a privilege by society, to act in a responsible way in furthering the health, both physical and mental, of those he calls his patients. (Delivered to medical students and faculty, School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, May 1976 by Mitchell I. Rubin, MD, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics, State University of New York at Buffalo, and Consultant in Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina).


2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-307
Author(s):  
Pavan Kumar

This article is an attempt to understand the idea of morality in two of the most influential philosophers Niccolo Machiavelli ( The Prince and Discourses) and Immanuel Kant ( Perpetual Peace and Metaphysical Elements of Justice). Machiavelli and Kant are chosen because both of them are the most cherished philosophers in their fields. Machiavelli’s name is associated with realism, and he got a bad name because of his alleged cruel advice to maintain the state. His name is equalled with cunningness, murder, treachery. On the other hand, Kant is the founding figure of idealism in politics. His focus on categorical imperative and human capabilities to attain the higher moral goals made him one of the most well-known philosophers on idealism. To understand the ethical problems of the day emphasis is given to the classic writings of scholars who have written extensively on morality, justice, state, power, human rights and individual freedom. This article is an attempt to answer the following questions: Is the state in itself a highest moral actor? Can there be an individual morality above the state? What should be the yardstick to judge an act—the act in itself or the outcome of the act? What are the duties and rights of the individual in domestic society and can there be a similarity of morality at the level of political leaders in international politics? The paper argues that both Machiavelli and Kant were dealing with different contexts and societies, and morality for them had different meanings. However, the end justifies the means dictum is not the right way to understand Machiavelli on morality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document