Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (10)
- Working Paper (8)
- Contribution to a Periodical (5)
Language
- German (12)
- English (9)
- Portuguese (1)
- Spanish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- Justification (4)
- Critique (2)
- Gerechtigkeit (2)
- Normative Orders (2)
- Normative Ordnungen (2)
- Rechtfertigung (2)
- Democracy (1)
- Demokratie (1)
- Equality (1)
- Globalisierung (1)
Institute
Noumenal Power
(2014)
In political or social philosophy, we speak about power all the time. Yet the meaning of this important concept is rarely made explicit, especially in the context of normative discussions. But as with many other concepts, once one considers it more closely, fundamental problems arise, such as whether a power relation is necessarily a relation of subordination and domination. In the following, I suggest a novel understanding of what power is and what it means to exercise it.
"Toleranz kommt vor Glückseligkeit" : eine Zeitreise mit der Tugend des gegenseitigen Respekts
(2016)
Toleranz ist gerade da nötig, wo sie besonders schwerfällt. Das war schon vor gut 300 Jahren so, als Denker wie der französische Philosoph Pierre Bayle in Zeiten religiöser Auseinandersetzungen den Grundstein für ein fortschrittliches Toleranz-Verständnis legten. Warum der Begriff gerade heute wieder Konjunktur hat und wie umstritten er noch immer ist, erläutert der politische Philosoph Rainer Forst im Gespräch mit Bernd Frye.
Professor Dr. Karl-Otto Apel, Emeritus für Philosophie an der Goethe-Universität, ist am 15. Mai 2017 im Alter von 95 Jahren an seinem Wohnort in Niedernhausen im Taunus gestorben. Er war einer der wichtigsten Philosophen seiner Zeit und hat die Philosophie in Deutschland und weit darüber hinaus nachhaltig geprägt.
Very few people doubt that it is a fundamental demand of justice that members of legal-political normative orders ought to have legal rights that define their basic standing as subjects of such an order. But when it comes to the concrete understanding of such rights, debates abound. What is the nature of these rights – are they an expression of the sovereign will of individuals, or are they based on important human interests? How should these rights be justified – do they have a particular moral ground, and if so, only one or many?
Nach knapp vier Monaten Corona-Krise stellen sich auch der Wissenschaft viele Fragen: Sind bestimmte Teile der Gesellschaft stärker von den Folgen betroffen, klafft eine Gerechtigkeitslücke? Öffnen sich vielleicht aber auch Wege für neue medizinische, gesellschaftliche, wirtschaftliche und ökologische Ansätze? Forscherinnen und Forscher der Goethe-Universität aus verschiedenen Disziplinen wagen eine Zwischenbilanz und einen Ausblick.
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the concept of solidarity and distinguish various conceptions of solidarity that differ depending on social and normative contexts. The analysis helps to clarify both the different meanings of the term “solidarity” (and the different normative conceptions) and to avoid some of its pitfalls. The latter stem from making false connections between these conceptions, such as the assumption that solidarity must always be of an ethical or nationalist nature, that it is categorially different from justice or is always supererogatory. Solidarity as a virtue comes in many forms and with many justifications and grounds, and one must not reduce this plurality, but instead describe it properly. As already indicated, this opens up the possibility of conflicts between these contexts and dimensions of solidarity. The (as argued) “normatively dependent” concept of solidarity does not tell us to which form we ought to accord priority.
Allen Buchanan argues that a particular set of false factual beliefs, especially when part of a comprehensive ideology, can lead persons to develop ‘morally conservative’ convictions that stand in the way of realising justice even though these persons have a ‘firm grasp of correct principles of justice and a robust commitment to their realisation’. In my remarks, I raise some questions concerning the core argument: How ‘firm’ can a grasp of principles of justice be if a person is blind to the realities of injustice? And how ‘sincerely committed’ to justice can such an injustice-insensitive person be? Alternatively: How firm is that grasp or commitment if one has a radically pessimistic view about human nature so that one does not believe that (egalitarian) justice can or could ever be realised? Secondly, I ask: If such ideologies or false beliefs are in play in reproducing injustice, do they not also ‘mask’ existing injustices?