Public intellectual as an educational project

The article reveals the role of education in ensuring the existence of a contemporary democratic system. Democratic governance is viewed through the prism of the crisis of representative democracy that arises in global world. The focus of the crisis forms a crisis of citizen participation in democratic governance. Among the various scenarios for overcoming this crisis, the emphasis is on a model of deliberative (“discussing”) democracy. Accordingly, a key role in the productive functioning of contemporary democracy belongs to public discourse. Public discourse has an internal contradiction. Its participants are guided by their own interests, but the productivity of the discourse is achieved only if it is subject to the requirements of the common good. Five criteria of the authenticity of the discourse that make it aimed at the common good are highlighted. The medium of discourse that ensures its authenticity is a public intellectual. It is proved that the main vocation of education in the contemporary democratic system is the production of a public intellectual as an effective social character. In this process, a key role belongs to humanitarian education, respectively organized.

Download Full-text

The Ethics of Voting

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics ◽

10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1362 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

James Stacey Taylor

Keyword(s):

Common Good ◽

Democratic Governance ◽

The Common Good ◽

The Third ◽

Voter Preferences ◽

Electoral Outcomes ◽

Political Preferences ◽

Self Interest ◽

Individual Vote ◽

The Common

The first question that is often raised in a discussion of the ethics of voting is whether or not there is a duty to vote. The view that there is a duty to vote is supported by two main arguments. The first holds that since the value of democratic governance is high persons should vote to preserve stable democracy. The second is that there is a duty to vote because if nobody voted the effects would be disastrous. The first of these arguments is criticized by Jason Brennan, who holds that since each individual vote will play little to no role in preserving stable democracy nobody has a duty to vote. The second is criticized by Loren Lomasky and Geoffrey Brennan, who argue that it is incomplete unless its supporters can show that democracy needs everyone to vote to continue. The question of whether there is a duty to vote naturally leads to the question of whether it is permissible for persons to vote in their own self-interest. Jason Brennan argues that persons should only (morally) vote for candidates or policies that they are justified in believing would promote the common good. It is unclear, however, what “the common good” consists of. This discussion of the morality of voting in one’s self-interest leads to the question of whether voting for a politician because she has made campaign promises is morally analogous to a voter selling her vote. In discussing this issue it is important to distinguish between the “restricted” defense of markets in votes (that the purchased votes are to be cast in favor of what the buyer is justified in believing is the common good) and the “unrestricted” defense of such a market (that purchased votes can be cast in any way the buyer pleases). Much of this discussion focuses on the morality of unrestricted markets in votes. Christopher Freiman has offered four main arguments in favor of such a market: (1) that it will make both the buyer and the seller better off; (2) that it is required by respect for voter liberty; (3) that it is relevantly similar to other practices that are currently allowed, such as logrolling; and (4) that it would enable electoral outcomes to better express voter preferences. None of these arguments are persuasive. The first is based on illicitly inferring from the claim that persons would voluntarily buy and sell votes if a market were allowed to the claim that they would thereby desire that this market be allowed. The second argument is flawed because if some persons would prefer that a market not be allowed, this could provide a sufficient reason to restrict their liberty by precluding them from selling their votes. The third argument overlooks important disanalogies between votes traded between voters, and votes traded between legislators. The fourth argument is based on the implausible assumption that vote sellers would not misrepresent their political preferences in a market for votes.

Download Full-text

Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: Up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation

10.31235/osf.io/v24jn ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Paolo Cardullo ◽

Rob Kitchin

Keyword(s):

Citizen Participation ◽

Smart City ◽

Common Good ◽

Smart Cities ◽

Individual Autonomy ◽

Political Rights ◽

Conceptual Tool ◽

The Common Good ◽

The Common ◽

Urban Issues

This paper critically appraises citizens’ participation in the smart city. Reacting to critiques that the smart city is overly technocratic and instrumental, companies and cities have reframed their initiatives as ‘citizen-centric’. However, what ‘citizen-centric’ means in practice is rarely articulated. We draw on and extend Sherry Arnstein’s seminal work on participation in planning and renewal programmes to create the ‘Scaffold of Smart Citizen Participation’ – a conceptual tool to unpack the diverse ways in which the smart city frames citizens. We then use this scaffold to measure smart citizen inclusion, participation, and empowerment in smart city initiatives in Dublin, Ireland. Our analysis illustrates how most ‘citizen-centric’ smart city initiatives are rooted in stewardship, civic paternalism, and a neoliberal conception of citizenship that prioritizes consumption choice and individual autonomy within a framework of state and corporate defined constraints that prioritize market-led solutions to urban issues, rather than being grounded in civil, social and political rights and the common good. We conclude that significant normative work is required to rethink ‘smart citizens’ and ‘smart citizenship’ and to remake smart cities if they are to truly become ‘citizen-centric’.

Download Full-text

A TEOLOGIA NA ESFERA PÚBLICA: TRÊS TIPOS DE DISCURSO PÚBLICO

Perspectiva Teológica ◽

10.20911/21768757v44n122p29/2012 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 44 (122) ◽

pp. 29

Author(s):

David Tracy

Keyword(s):

Common Good ◽

Public Discourse ◽

Public Realm ◽

The Public ◽

The Common Good ◽

The Common ◽

The Individual ◽

Relationship Of

O autor sugere reabrir a participação da religião na esfera pública, considerando três noções de dimensão do discurso público, que o autor vai chamar de: Publicidade Um, Dois e Três. As afinidades da teologia católica com a filosofia e a razão, a sua auto-compreensão de comunidade, concretizada na sua ideia central de pessoa e não de indivíduo; conceitos centrais sobre o bem comum, a solidariedade, a subsidiariedade, o seu repensar sempre novo da relação intrínseca entre o amor e a justiça, todos esses recursos deveriam desempenhar um papel forte na esfera pública de nossa sociedade, tanto por meio da razão argumentativa da Publicidade Um, pela razão hermenêutica da Publicidade Dois, como pela razão contemplativameditativa e profética da Publicidade Três.ABSTRACT: The author suggests reopening the discussion on religion, as a public contribution to the public realm, by focusing on three distinct notions of public discourse, i.e., publicness, from ancient Greeks until today: hence, Publicness One, Two and Three. Catholic theology’s natural affinities for the role of philosophy and reason, its communal self-understanding, concretized in its central ideas of the person, not the individual; central concepts on the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity; its ever new rethinking of the intrinsic relationship of love and justice; all these resources should play a strong role in the public realm of our society through either the argumentative reason of Publicness One, the hermeneutical reason of Publicness Two, or the contemplative-meditative and prophetic reason of Publicness.

Download Full-text

Integral Citizen Observatory (ICO) Los Cabos: a new citizen participation organization for governing the common good

Investigación & Desarrollo ◽

10.14482/indes.29.2.323.042 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 29 (2) ◽

pp. 223-259

Author(s):

Gloria Ostos Mota

Keyword(s):

Citizen Participation ◽

Common Good ◽

The Common Good ◽

Agenda 2030 ◽

The Common

Desde una aproximación neoinstitucionalista presentamos el OCI Los Cabos como una nueva organización para la participación ciudadana; según la clasificación de North, es un nuevo cuerpo político, que enfrentando los mismos retos para su autogobierno que Ostrom define para otras organizaciones en El Gobierno de los Bienes Comunes, propone además una nueva institución, el estándar internacional ISO 18091, para la gestión de calidad de los gobiernos locales, con el objetivo de promover la eficiencia y la participación ciudadana en el gobierno del bien común local, y global, según la Agenda 2030. En esta interacción compleja entre organizaciones (OCI Los Cabos) y organismos (gobierno local) con las viejas y nuevas instituciones se requiere de una participación ciudadana consciente y competente que desarrollando una inteligencia política colectiva contribuirá, sin duda, a un cambio institucional hacia una mejor gobernanza local global.

Download Full-text