People often ask me why I continue to publish my writings on the Internet in this blog when I could publish a book. I answer, much to the surprise of my interlocutors, that Quebec publishers are not interested in me publish it! I am told that since these texts are available free to anyone with Internet access, why then make them available in book form? In addition, retorts that the text of my e-book form in the ephemeral in that they address topics of current interest, tomorrow, will fall quickly into oblivion. It struck me with the argument that philosophy only deals with the universal, the reader wishing to know the mind of such a philosopher will not hear of Marc Lepine and the Montreal massacre, the heroism of Commander Piché of the Presidency of Barak Obama film by Bernard Emond, exploitation of shale gas or whatnot. No, the works of philosophy are serious, ever does is repeat myself: they are learned treatises where everything is special, unique, specific to a particular place and time, is irrelevant. There is, obviously, a clear bias that would be "the true philosophy", namely that taught at the university and accessible only to a small coterie of austere scholars and scientists. Wittgenstein rightly stood against this design academic and puffy, after all, philosophy. In this regard, he once wrote to his friend Norman Malcolm
I wondered [...] what could well be the usefulness of philosophy, if we could learn to play more or less correct on abstruse questions of logic, etc.. if she is really unable to help us better judge the most important problems of everyday existence if it does not allow us to use more discernment that any journalist expressions dangerous than they use it for interested parties. (in Ludwig Wittgenstein, Norman Malcolm, Ludwig Wittgenstein in, The blue book and workbook brown, Gallimard, Tel, 1965, p. 351.)
There is no doubt that towards borrowing Michal J. Sandel, a professor of political philosophy at the prestigious Harvard University, is prescribed by Wittgenstein. His latest work, Justice , eloquently illustrated. The proponent of academic philosophy cry wolf before this mass of anecdotes, real or fictional cases, scattered throughout the book, where dimension theory appears in the background. Readers who appreciated the rigorous analysis and (say it) highly theoretical Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982), will no doubt disappointed by Justice. Not that Sandel has swapped the rigor for convenience since in some respects, Sandel's thought is equally rigorous. You should know that Sandel is intended primarily, not to his academic peers, but young people who begin their studies in philosophy at the undergraduate level. For over thirty years, in fact, Sandel teaches young university students a course called "Justice". "The race student exposed to sacrifice part of The Great Philosophical writings about justice, And Also Takes Up Contemporary Legal and Political controversies That Philosophical raise questions. ( Justice, p. 293). The philosophy teachers would do well to take a look at this book is full of lessons alive.
philosophy - political philosophy, in this case - seems remote from the concerns of Mr.-and-madame-all-the-world. Like it or not, however, one can not escape philosophy policy since, as written in the preface to Sandel Democracy's Discontent (1996). "For all We May Resist Such ultimate questions have The Meaning of Justice & the nature of good life, What We Can not Escape Is That We Live Some thesis to answer questions - we live Some theory - all the time. In other words, we realize it or not, our existence as citizens is shaped by a certain political philosophy and the philosopher's task is to highlight the concept that we are implicit in the organization of power in society. Hence the author's continual recourse to the many real or fictitious situations that punctuate the social, political and cultural details of which can identify the underlying political philosophy. The purpose of Sandel, which I also agree wholeheartedly, is to reveal the universal in the particular philosophy implicit in the news. The "universal individual" if you will lend me this oxymoron. I think Wittgenstein was something like that, and it seems to me that this was what Aristotle in his ethical treatises: " ... it's good, it seems, that 'we need to talk: not the property outright, but well for us. "wrote the master of the Lyceum (The g rande moral , 1182b 3-4; emphasis added). So, against his illustrious predecessors, Socrates and Plato, Aristotle will consist in the excellence of the highest good politician. We are far from cynicism that afflicts contemporary politics!
Sandel is well known as a prominent critic of John Rawls. As Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Walzer and Charles Taylor, Sandel was associated with the camp "communitarian" against the "liberals" in the debate that raged in political philosophy since the publication in 1971 the Theory of Justice Rawls. Ensures that Sandel is mistaken when he applies the label of philosopher "communitarian" if, "communalism" denotes the argument that "... the rights should be based on the dominant values of a given community at one point, then it is a concept that I am not defending . "( Liberalism and the Limits of Justice , p. 12) What is the theory of communitarianism to Sandel? Follows: good takes precedence over the right. basically the opposite of that of Rawls, namely: the priority of right over the good . Far from founding principles of justice independently or in a neutral manner with respect to citizens' conceptions of the good life, Rawls presuppose such a conception of the good life. The priority of the right over the good is only a smokescreen that Sandel managed to break out with remarkable lucidity. What is not there because our liberal society is, in essence, Rawls. Also unmasked the lures of Rawls, is unmasked, politically, the lures of our society.
Over time, Sandel said his communitarianism and was led to adopt a distinct Aristotelian or neo-Aristotelian political philosophy. This is what emerges most clearly from Justice and this is his greatest achievement . Already in 1998 the second edition of Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (published in 1982), Sandel wrote:
Insofar [...] the arguments in favor of rights does may be based on the moral purposes that these rights serve to promote, it would be better to say that this is a teleological (or, in the jargon of contemporary philosophy, doctrine perfectionist). The political conception of Aristotle is an example. Before you can define the rights of individuals seeking "the nature of the ideal constitution, he says, we must identify the nature of life's most desirable. Until this point we remain unclear, the nature of the constitution will also be ideal. "( Justice, p. 14; the author cites Policies Aristotle, 1323a 14)
This Only Justice that Sandel fully implements the design "perfectionist" inspired by Aristotle. In the last chapter, the author writes:
Over the course of this journey, we've Explored Three Approaches to justice. It says justice means clustering Maximizing welfare utiliy gold ... The second says Justice Means Respecting freedom of choice ... The Third says Justice Involves Reasoning about Cultivating Virtue and the Common Good. As you've guessed by now Probably, I Favour a version of The Third approach. ( Justice, p. 260)
Sandel has multiplied the cases and examples his thesis. Consider briefly the case of the policy itself. ( Justice, p. 192 to 195)
What is the end of politics, Sandel calls? The liberal answer is that the end of politics is to develop a procedure by which citizens themselves choose their own end. The state, as was fond of repeating Pierre Elliot Trudeau did not put his nose into our bedrooms, expressing the private nature of morality and religion of everyone. This follows from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982 under the initiative precisely Trudeau's Liberal government, which requires inter alia a right to freedom of conscience and religion.
For a "perfectionist" as Aristotle, it is different since it does not pose a human rights framework is wanting neutral point of view for the citizens. "Its to form writes Sandel, Good Citizen and to cultivate good character. ( Justice, p. 193) Aristotle wrote:
The political virtue and vice, that is, on the contrary, whereupon those who care about good legislation have their eyes. For this it is also clear that the city that really deserves the name [...] must deal with virtue, because otherwise the political community would become a military alliance differing only by the unit rather than the other military alliances between peoples who are distant from each other . While the law is pure convention [...] , it is a guarantor of justice in mutual relations, but it is not able to make citizens good and just . (Aristotle, 1280a )
The motto for the Liberals, they repeat ad nauseam , is "living together". That is the purpose "Liberal" politics. On the contrary, for Aristotle, it is well live together, to be happy . " But it is not only to live but for a happy life in a city that comes together ... We must therefore put it to good actions exists the political community, not to live together . "writes Aristotle.
Now consider a specific example of societal debate being considered by Sandel ( Justice, p. 253 to 260), that of marriage for same sex couples. You can not judge the homosexual marriage without determining what the goal or purpose of marriage, even when invoking the equality of all before the law, arguing that the denial of marriage between same sex is intolerable discrimination. However, the debate over gay marriage debate is fundamentally a moral nature as to whether unions gay and lesbians deserve the same recognition as heterosexual marriage state. The moral question is whether gay marriage deserves honorary recognition that the state confers to heterosexual marriage.
The Liberals, of course, circumvent the issue arguing that it is not to rule on the meaning or purpose of marriage, but to judge whether the rights of the people involved were injured. By banning marriage between same sex, the state appears to discriminate against some of its citizens. Their rights to equality before the law and the freedom of choice seem indeed violated. In short, people should have the right to marry whomever they want.
On reflection, however, this reasoning is not valid. The premise that says that people should exercise their autonomy and free choice , we can not conclude satisfactorily they should marry whom they want . In this account, indeed, we might as well admit that people can marry several spouses or even members of their own family or with animals or plants or minerals, to the extent that it is only to exercise their free choice.
The moral question remains: gay marriage is legitimate?, This type of union he deserves the recognition of the state? To break this impasse, the Liberals invoke the idea that marriage is an institution that changes depending on the time and place. They therefore call moral relativism. They argue that marriage can be considered as a commitment of fidelity between two partners - gay or straight, whatever. However, this type of reasoning takes the liberal position on the purpose or purposes of marriage, that is to say, he leaves his apparent neutrality to affirm the moral legitimacy of homosexual marriage. Farewell neutrality!
With Justice, Michael Sandel has finally mounted his warhorse. It's mine too. To repeat here the title of a book by Nietzsche is Justice new Untimely Meditations.
0 comments:
Post a Comment