scholarly journals Filozoficzne ujęcie kultury politycznej

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 91-109
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Nogal
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Civic Culture ◽  
Attitudes And Practices ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Normative Dimension ◽  
Political Philosopher

The theory of political culture was presented by two well-known scientists, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba. They outlined three pure types of political culture that can be combined to create civic culture. They argued that we are in transition toward a more universalistic political culture, which may be characterized by unification and participation. The thesis of this paper is that we observe a return of the category of political culture in philosophical and normative, rather than in sociological and descriptive, terms. A well-known political philosopher, John Rawls, created a model of liberal political culture. Other modern scholars also suggested that education and political culture are the keys to establishing the institutional forms of liberal democracy. The difference between the recent understanding of political culture and that presented by Almond and Verba in the 1970s is vivid and important. In the 1970s, political culture was perceived in sociological terms – as a historically shaped set of attitudes and practices which can be described by using quantitative and qualitative tools. Today, political culture has become a subject of research in the field of political philosophy. It is recognized in its normative dimension, and it shapes a debate around the positive model of citizenship.

La Idea de “Razón Publica” (y su Revisión) en el Último Rawls

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 5-31
Author(s):  
Fernando Aranda Fraga ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Public Good ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
The Political ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Key Topics ◽  
Political Philosopher

In 1993 John Rawls published his main and longest work since 1971, where he had published his reknowned A Theory of Justice, book that made him famous as the greatest political philosopher of the century. We are referring to Political Liberalism, a summary of his writings of the 80’s and the first half of the 90’s, where he attempts to answer the critics of his intellectual partners, communitarian philosophers. One of the key topics in this book is the issue of “public reason”, whose object is nothing else than public good, and on which the principles and proceedings of justice are to be applied. The book was so important for the political philosophy of the time that in 1997 Rawls had to go through the 1993 edition, becoming this new one the last relevant writing published before the death of the Harvard philosopher in November 2002.

Reflections on Rawls

2008 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-271
Author(s):  
Shaun P. Young
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Substantial Part ◽  
Late Twentieth ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Political Philosopher ◽  
English Speaking World ◽  
Number Of Individuals

Arguably, there have been few contemporary political theorists who have had as great an impact as John Rawls. During his lifetime his work was referred to as “epoch-making” and “cataclysmic in its effect” on the field of political theory. On numerous occasions he was proclaimed “the most important political philosopher of the twentieth century,” and other titles equally celebratory. A number of individuals have gone so far as to credit Rawls with reviving political philosophy, breathing new life into what was (according to Peter Laslett's now famous 1956 declaration) a dead discipline, once again making it a valid and valuable enterprise. While the accuracy of such a claim has been questioned, one fact seems indisputable: Rawls redefined late twentieth-century political theory, altering its “premises and principles.” Indeed, “political philosophy since the early 1970s has been—at least in the English-speaking world—in very substantial part a commentary on Rawls's work.”

Liberalism and Distributive Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Western World ◽  
Liberal Society ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
The Social ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Political Philosopher

This volume of essays addresses a wide range of issues in contemporary political philosophy, from the different branches of liberalism and their relation to capitalism, to the basic institutions of a liberal society that underwrite political and economic justice. Samuel Freeman is a leading political philosopher and one of the foremost authorities on the works of John Rawls. This volume contains nine of his essays on liberalism, Rawls, and distributive justice. Freeman organizes his chapters into a narrative arc: from liberalism as the dominant political and economic system in the Western world, to the laws governing interpersonal transactions in a liberal society, to the broad social and political structures that determine distributive justice. Freeman analyzes the primary differences between the classical and high liberal traditions; shows why libertarianism is not a liberal view; argues for the social rather than global bases of distributive justice; demonstrates why Rawls’s difference principle supports a property-owning democracy rather than welfare-state capitalism; and shows how Rawls’s liberal principles of justice and the difference principle are to be applied in both ideal and non-ideal circumstances, effectively responding to criticisms by Amartya Sen, G. A. Cohen, and others.

scholarly journals Talking liberties: John Rawls's theory of justice and psychiatric practice

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Ikkos ◽  
Jed Boardman ◽  
Tony Zigmond
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Law And Ethics ◽  
Political Philosopher ◽  
Scarcity Of Resources ◽  
Allocation Decisions ◽  
Resource Allocation Decisions

Scarcity of resources compared with need results in resource-allocation decisions that will have a beneficent effect on some clinical populations and will be detrimental to others. Political philosophy, through theories of social justice, aims to establish generally applicable principles to guide such decision-making. We introduce here the work of the foremost liberal political philosopher of the second half of the 20th century, John Rawls. As well as having implications for resource allocation, John Rawls's work is of relevance to law and ethics in clinical practice, especially for psychiatrists, who often work with vulnerable, disadvantaged and stigmatised people.

John Rawls and the Task of Political Philosophy

2009 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Weithman
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Moral Motivation ◽  
The Political ◽  
Real Possibility ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
The Holocaust ◽  
History Of ◽  
Just Society

AbstractIn this article, I sketch a reading of Rawls's work that ties together many of the features that distinguish it from the work of other authors commemorated in this issue. On this reading, the two world wars and the Holocaust pressed the question of whether a just liberal democracy is possible. Seeking to defend reasonable faith in that possibility, Rawls developed a theory of justice for an ideally just liberal democracy. He argued that such a society is a “real possibility” because, given reasonable psychological assumptions, the basic institutions of a just society would engender the moral support of its citizens. In doing so, Rawls challenged alternative accounts of moral motivation that enjoyed some currency in the analytic philosophy of the time. The interpretation of Rawls's work defended here therefore locates him in the philosophical as well as the political history of the twentieth century.

Historical Injustice, Rawlsian Egalitarianism, and Political Contestation

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-98
Author(s):  
Burke A. Hendrix
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Action ◽  
Political Authority ◽  
Psychological Effects ◽  
Difference Principle ◽  
Historical Injustice ◽  
Material Resources ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Careful Thought

Jeremy Waldron has plausibly argued that historical injustices can be superseded by serious efforts to achieve justice in the present and future. This essay considers what it might mean to arrange things justly in the relevant way, focusing on the work of John Rawls as our best existing template for conceptualizing justice of this kind. The essay outlines ways in which a Rawlsian system of social justice seems unable to meet its own normative aspirations and unable to provide a model for overcoming historically constituted disadvantage. As the essay argues, the society described by Rawls is likely to remain divided by inherited class structures, given the motivational requirements of markets and the psychological effects of the division of labor, so that inheritors of historical injustice would remain disadvantaged even if Rawlsian principles were put into practice. The essay considers some speculative methods for overcoming these inequalities, and argues that the most promising approach in circumstances as we know them will draw on already-existing programs of compensation for historical expropriation. The essay also argues that Rawlsians should take seriously the application of the difference principle to the distribution of political authority alongside material resources, suggesting that we should give careful thought to how political structures can protect the interests of the least advantaged. The paper argues that, once again, existing mechanisms for Aboriginal self-governance are more appropriate as a system of forward-looking justice than they may otherwise appear. The essay argues in closing that political philosophy should give increased attention to the ethics of political action and to conflict among the disadvantaged in imperfect circumstances.

scholarly journals Filozofia polityczna a racja stanu. Część 2

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-154
Author(s):  
Zbigniew Rau
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
The Political ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Conceptual Foundation ◽  
Reason Of State ◽  
Real Behavior ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Normative Dimension ◽  
Normative Argument

Reason of state understood as the reason for its existence and expressed by a synthesis of the normative as well as the political, including its normative and empirical, universal and particular, abstract and concrete dimensions requires a justification by political philosophy. Yet, in the output of the main body of Western political philosophy, including the Aristotelian, Marxist, and liberal traditions, the reason of state lacks any validation. In those traditions, there is no distinction between the elements to be found in all states and those present only in some of them. In fact, both in Aristotle and Marx, the normative in the conduct of all states sets the limits of the empirical which expresses their real behavior. The normative of general principles outlines the political of concrete states. The normative supervises the political and the political is to confirm the normative. Thus, in Aristotle and Marx, the political is to indicate the necessity of the normative, its power of influence and complex character. In turn, the modern as well as contemporary liberals, especially contractarians, completely deprive their normative argument of any empirical confirmation. Thus, they consciously and purposefully give it exclusively a normative dimension. Accordingly, the normative fully replaces the empirical which leads to the elimination of the political. In his concept of public reason, Rawls goes even further and considers the empirical identical with the normative, and consequently the political with the normative. For some of his followers, the irrevocable character of the connection between the normative and the empirical in the notion of public reason is to be guaranteed by elimination of the political. This is to be achieved by the abolition of the state itself and thus the deprivation of the idea of reason of state of any conceptual foundation. However, both in Montesquieu and Burke, there is a strong distinction between what characterizes all states and what distinguishes each of them. Such a distinction results from the difference between what is common to their subjects or citizens and the societies they create, and what distinguishes them from themselves and their societies. At the same time, Montesquieu’s liberalism and Burke’s conservatism offer an equilibrium of the normative and the political which in turn constitutes a doctrinal support for the concept of reason of state beyond the main traditions of western political philosophy.

On the Relevance of Political Philosophy to Business Ethics

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Moriarty
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Business Ethics ◽  
Distributive Justice ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
The Difference

Abstract:The central problems of political philosophy (e.g., legitimate authority, distributive justice) mirror the central problems of business ethics. The question naturally arises: should political theories be applied to problems in business ethics? If a version of egalitarianism is the correct theory of justice for states, for example, does it follow that it is the correct theory of justice for businesses? If states should be democratically governed by their citizens, should businesses be democratically managed by their employees? Most theorists who have considered these questions, including John Rawls in Political Liberalism, and Robert Phillips and Joshua Margolis in a 1999 article, have said “no.” They claim that states and businesses are different kinds of entities, and hence require different theories of justice. I challenge this claim. While businesses differ from states, the difference is one of degree, not one of kind. Business ethics has much to learn from political philosophy.

From Crusades to Colonization: Violence in Secular and Religious Political Theory

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Xavier Scott
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
State Power ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Medieval Period ◽  
Beliefs And Values

This paper examines the transition in political philosophy between the medieval and early-modern periods by focusing on the emergence of sovereignty doctrine. Scholars such as Charles Taylor and John Rawls have focused on the ability of modern-states to overcome conflicts between different religious confessionals. In contrast, this paper seeks to examine some of the peace-promoting features of Latin-Christendom and some of the conflict-promoting features of modern-secular states. The Christian universalism of the medieval period is contrasted with the colonial ventures promoted by the Peace of Westphalia. This paper’s goal is not to argue that secularism is in fact more violent than religion. Rather, it seeks to demonstrate the major role that religion played in early modern philosophy and the development of sovereignty doctrine. It argues against the view that the modern, secular state is capable of neutrality vis-à-vis religion, and also combats the view that the secular nature of modern international law means that it is neutral to the different beliefs and values of the world’s peoples. These observations emphasize the ways in which state power and legitimacy are at the heart of the secular turn in political philosophy. 

Political Philosophy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael N. Forster
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Political Philosopher

Although Herder is not usually known as a political philosopher, he in fact developed what is perhaps the most important political philosophy of his age. In domestic politics he was a liberal, a democrat, and an egalitarian; in international politics the champion of a distinctive pluralistic form of cosmopolitanism that sharply rejected imperialism, colonialism, slavery, and all other forms of exploitation of one people by another. Spanning both domains, while he enthusiastically shared the substantive goals of supporters of human rights he also developed a subtle critique of the concept itself, replacing it with his own concept of humanity. His political philosophy is theoretically minimalist and is all the stronger for being so.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document