Der soziotechnische Wandel bringt neue Phänomene des Zufalls hervor, die sich den üblichen Strategien des Umgangs mit Risiken und Unsicherheit entziehen. Diese Akzidenzphänomene sind prinzipiell unvorhersehbar und in ihrer komplexen Effektgesamtheit jenseits von Kalkulation und Antizipation. Eine allgemeine Verzukünftigung unseres Weltbezuges mit spezifischen weitreichenden Problemen ist die Folge und lässt klassische Agenturen des Risikomanagements und der Unsicherheitsbewältigung an ihre Leistungsgrenzen stoßen. Bruno Gransche zeigt, dass Philosophie und Zukunftsforschung gemeinsam großes Potenzial aufweisen, hier zu helfen.

Desiderius Erasmus who is known as a prominent philosopher of renaissance period has been mentioned as a humanist or pacifist in many sources. Nevertheless, it seemed that he articulated some different thoughts beyond the ideas attributed to him. About the point in question, this work aims to discuss how to position Erasmus in ideological terms through analyzing his ideas he revealed in his works about war and peace. Within this context, it will be examined to what extent the ascription of (...) humanist and pacifist frequently to him is coherent. Consequently, it will be tried to suggest a proposal about how we should describe him depending on the findings. (shrink)

The efficiency of engineering applied to civilian projects sometimes threatens to run away with the social agenda, but in military applications, engineering often adds a devastating sleekness to the inevitable destruction of life. The relative crudeness of terrorism (e.g., 9/11) leaves a stark after-image, which belies the comparative insignificance of random (as opposed to orchestrated) belligerence. Just as engineering dwarfs the bricolage of vernacular design—moving us past the appreciation of brush-strokes, so to speak—the scale of engineered destruction makes it difficult (...) to focus on the charred remains of individual lives. Engineers need to guard against the inappropriate military subsumption of their effort. Fortunately, the ethics of warfare has been an ongoing topic of discussion for millennia. This paper will examine the university core class I’ve developed (The Moral Dimensions of Technology) to meet accreditation requirements in engineering ethics, and the discussion with engineering and non-engineering students focused by the life of electrical engineer Vannevar Bush, with selected readings in moral philosophy from the Dao de Jing, Lao Tze, Cicero, Aurelius Augustinus, Kant, Annette Baier, Peter Singer, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Judith Thomson. (shrink)

A sociologist who has to confront him/herself with social change cannot avoid running into subjectivity, which is seen as a clear indicator of the most recent tendencies that are going through contemporary society. The demand for subjectivity, generically considered as self-consciousness and the need for self-fulfilment, is undoubtedly a distinguishing feature of our age. The central role this concept has gained within recent sociological literature, however, coincides with the rise of a postmodern sociology, which tends to put forward a precise (...) image of subjectivity that I would call ?minimalist.? Through its call for subjectivity, postmodern sociology intends to celebrate indeed a radical freeing from the ethical, social, and relational constraints that would have oppressed human beings during modernity, which was characterized by a high degree of sociocentrism. Although I share all the contentions that aim at underlining the positive achievements of subjectivity over the constrictions and the de-personalizing forces that distressed the so-called homo sociologicus, I think we need nonetheless to distance ourselves from this new reductionism, which levels out subjectivity to its postmodern conception, and to underline instead the existence of a dual aspect in contemporary subjectivity. As a matter of fact, along with its minimalist and disengaged aspect, conceptualized in the homo psychologicus, another possible expression, called ?significant subjectivity? is emerging, which is a typical feature of the kind of human I propose to define civicus, a human who distinguishes him/herself because of the ability to become the bearer of an authentic form of responsible freedom. Consequently, we can identify two different aspects, at least, in contemporary subjectivity, notably a minimalist and a significant aspect. (shrink)

In this article, the author explores the metaphysical foundations of evil. Research shows that as a transcendental phenomenon, evil reveals itself in two “optics”. On the one hand, evil means certain ontological aspects, which are distortions of the mode of co-existence. On the other hand, evil is a deformation of the existential nature of man. Thus, evil is a condition for the deformation of the ontological foundations of being, penetrating the world through human. In other words, the metaphysical nature of (...) evil appears as, firstly, “absence”, “void”, and, secondly, “distortion”, “imperfection”. In this regard, evil appears as ontologically and chronologically secondary to good. It exists only on the basis of good as its distortion, defect, simulacrum. The emptiness, unreality of evil opens the sphere of its existence, that is, an illusion. This explains the fact that evil receives its “reality”, materiality and form only with the help of a person who is free in his choice and able to distort the nature of good and realize illusion. Good is knowledge, it can transform a person, it is a living spiritual knowledge that opens itself to a knowing person in the process of mastering the surrounding reality, it fills him / her with content and uniqueness. In this perspective, good is a universal value system, the basis of which is love, truth, faith, labor, spiritual perfection, etc. In contrast, evil realizes itself in the denial of higher values, distortion or inappropriate use of the Truth of human existence. The study shows that the nature of evil is selfish, atomic and separating. Evil is all that contradicts the interests of the whole, that is, love, good, truth, freedom. It is all that individualizes, fragmentes, distorts, destroys the Truth of the whole. Thus, the basic principle of evil is “It’s every man for himself, everyone is his own god”. Therefore, as noted by religious philosophers, evil in human is associated primarily with the loss of his / her integrity. A person who has embarked on the path of violence and self-destruction is evil. This person is mistaken and unhappy, because he has not formed as a person. Goodness in human is internal integrity, unity, submission of his / her mind and bodily life to a higher spiritual principles. (shrink)