“A Conviction about What is Moral or Lawful” Carl Schmitt on humanitarianism, the humanum, and the possibility of a “universal jus commune”

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985) spent much of his life arguing against human rights. While this may not come as a surprise, a closer examination of The Concept of the Political reveals that Schmitt’s critique of Liberal humanitarianism is itself rooted in a concept of the humanum as a sphere of substantive moral and political conflict. As an analysis of Schmitt’s concept of the enemy shows, this humanum serves as an argument for the necessity of a juristic distinction between enemy and foe. For, only by distinguishing between the relativized enemy and the absolute foe, Schmitt argues, will we be able to distinguish create a space for particularly political action. Having revealed the framework of mediated moral conflict, in which Schmitt conceives of political action, I then turn to consider Schmitt’s minimalist proposal for a positive definition of a “universal jus commune” and assess its significance for a discussion of human rights.

Prolegomenon

Hayek contended that the Open Society has evolved beyond basic human inclinations and capacities. We will consider his three Unsettling Theses. First, that the Open Society is fundamentally at odds with our evolved moral intuitions. Second, that the Open Society’s complexity surpasses our capacity to understand the function and justification of its constitutive rules. Third, that the Open Society has evolved beyond our governance. These concerns apparently manifest in our daily politics. Because of the first, we are constantly tempted to morally renounce, and construct barriers to, The Open Society. Because of the second, our attempts to reflect on and reconstruct its rules generate unrelenting moral conflict. Because of the third, we lack the knowledge to competently improve the functioning of the Open Society, and so we are always disappointed with our politics. Hayek’s diagnoses of these systems, long dismissed, resonate with a large body of contemporary scientific work and thus merit deeper investigation and possible revision. This will be done across inquiries into each one of Hayek’s Unsettling Theses. The first inquiry considers the problem of our evolved moral nature, and whether we are by nature parochial egalitarians who rebel at diversity, inclusion and impartiality. The second inquiry analyses the Open Society itself, particularly its autocatalytic diversity and constant change. The third inquiry focuses on whether the open society is beyond governance.

Attitude Moralization Within Polarized Contexts: An Emotional Value-Protective Response to Dyadic Harm Cues

Polarization about societal issues involves attitudinal conflict, but we know little about how such conflict transforms into moral conflict. Integrating insights on polarization and psychological value protection, we propose a model that predicts when and how attitude moralization (i.e., when attitudes become grounded in core values) may be triggered and develops within polarized contexts. We tested this model in three experiments (total N = 823) in the context of the polarized Zwarte Piet (blackface) debate in the Netherlands. Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (a) situational cues to dyadic harm in this context (i.e., an outgroup that is perceived as intentionally inflicting harm onto innocent victims) trigger individuals to moralize their relevant attitude, because of (b) emotional value-protective responses. Findings supported both hypotheses across different regional contexts, suggesting that attitude moralization can emerge within polarized contexts when people are exposed to actions by attitudinal opponents perceived as causing dyadic harm.

Dirty Hands and Moral Conflict – Lessons from the Philosophy of Evil

According to one understanding of the problem of dirty hands, every case of dirty hands is an instance of moral conflict, but not every instance of moral conflict is a case of dirty hands. So, what sets the two apart? The dirty hands literature has offered widely different answers to this question but there has been relatively little discussion about their relative merits as well as challenges. In this paper I evaluate these different accounts by making clear which understanding of concept distinctness underlies them and which of them is, ultimately, the most plausible one in the case of dirty hands and ordinary moral conflict. In order to do so, I will borrow from the terminology employed in recent debates in the philosophy of evil which have tackled a similar problem to the one at hand, i.e. defining what sets evil apart from ordinary wrongdoing. Here it has been argued that concepts could be distinct in three ways: they can have a quantitative difference, a strong qualitative or a moderate qualitative difference. I conclude that the most convincing definition of dirty hands draws a moderate qualitative distinction between ordinary moral conflict according to which dirty hands are those moral conflicts that involve a serious violation or betrayal of a core moral value.

Building the Character and Thought Structure of Political Actors based on Pancasila Politics

<p><em>The development of a negative stigma against politics today is a reality that occurs in the mindset of society. This is caused by various factors including the thoughts, attitudes, and behavior of political actors. One of them is a politician. The thoughts, attitudes, and behavior of politicians have a significant role in shaping the image of politics in the eyes of society. Currently, there is a lot of negative stigma about politics. There are two theories in politics, namely moral based theories and political theories that ignore the moral conflict between these two theories and there is a tug of war in the current political field in politicians so that two problems are related to the background of the basic thought structure of politicians who are driven to practice praxis. negative politics and efforts to form a political thought structure that is in line with the "Political Value" of the Indonesian nation are interesting issues to study. The method used in this paper is a qualitative approach with the literary study method, based approach, it can be seen that the theories currently developing are political theories that ignore the moral basis and requirements with pragmatism in politics so that it requires the strengthening and construction of the Pancasila political building which is prerequisite. with immorality to displace political theories that are far from moral bases and to eradicate various immoral behavior of politicians today.</em></p>

Untold Stories of Moral Injury: What We Are Learning—And Not Learning—From Military Veterans in Transition

Despite increases in technical capacities for communication, contemporary society struggles with a persistent inability to effectively engage in collective action around a growing number of existential challenges manifesting in local, national, and global contexts. Confronted with environmental deterioration, economic disruptions, wars, and civil unrest, we are challenged to engage in coherent conversations that could lead to collective action, based on a shared understanding. Instead, we are enmeshed in polarized narratives, competing agendas, and emotional conflict. The uneven response to the global COVID-19 pandemic is but the most recent example of this lack of unity. As we seek to find our way in this increasingly complex social landscape, one of the best potential sources for learning about social systems and communication in conflict has gone largely unexamined. For nearly two decades, Military veterans of many nations have struggled while returning from wartime service in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite best efforts to welcome these service members home and provide access to educational and health benefits, many of them report a difficulty in relating to fellow citizens and institutions upon their return. One indicator of this sense of alienation is the growing number of suicides among this population, now exceeding the number of casualties of combat service itself. Thwarted ability to communicate with others outside of the military and veterans community, and therefore participate in post-service social life, is increasingly recognized as a significant risk factor for suicide. It has never been easy for military veterans to talk about combat experiences. However, the levels of social isolation we are seeing now points toward a deeper and more systemic issue that is not necessarily connected to specific experiences of combat trauma, but instead rooted in real or perceived cultural and moral misalignments associated with difficult experiences in both service and post-serve transition. The longer term effects of thwarted communication and social isolation of veterans, or the feeling of not fitting in can lead to further damage to the underlying moral structures, manifesting as moral conflict (Pearce and Littlejohn, 1997) or moral injuries (Shay, 2014). These moral injuries may include perceived personal failings or culpability based on specific combat experiences, or more generally, a sense of futility in the political limitations of military missions, or perceived betrayals of trust by those in authority. Additionally, stressors and misalignments in the transition process around homecoming are likely as much of a factor as combat experience in creating moral injuries. Many veterans point to a lack of shared values and principles among citizens, and within social institutions and media, as one reason for the difficulty of post-service reintegration. Moral injuries in this sense have further existential implications, with important (but often unheard) messages for our entire society. These are not simple issues that can be addressed by our current array of social work or clinical interventions, or by altering narratives and messages. Rather, they demand a full and interdisciplinary engagement in collective assessment and meaning-making at the society level. As a way of inviting communication scholars into this conversation, I present several models drawn from the Coordinated Management of Meaning (CMM) Theory (Pearce, 2007) to look at the way that moral conflict and moral injuries are made or socially constructed in misaligned communication between returning service members and families, institutions, and others at both the population level and in community settings. Mental health implications are drawn Adlerian psychology, a body of psychological theory that is intersubjectively oriented, and shares a relational or social constructionist orientation with CMM. I then discuss the significance of these intersections in communication and mental health theory and practice, and implications for looking more closely at social connections and communication as key components of well-being and coherence.