All humans have an equal basic moral status. They possess the same fundamental rights, and the comparable interests of each person should count the same in calculations that determine social policy. Neither supposed racial differences, nor skin color, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, intelligence, nor any other differences among humans negate their fundamental equal worth and dignity. These platitudes are virtually universally affirmed. A white supremacist racist or an admirer of Adolf Hitler who denies them is rightly regarded as beyond the (...) pale of civilized dialogue. However, a very simple line of argument developed by Peter Singer challenges our understanding of these platitudes and forces us to rethink the basis and nature of the moral equality of all humans. What I call the “Singer Problem” arises if one accepts that the morally significant cognitive capacities that are relevant to the determination of the fundamental moral status of a being vary from individual to individual by degree. The problem is to specify a moral principle determining fundamental moral status that assigns a superior status to humans compared to other animals on the basis of the superior cognitive capacities of humans but also assigns all human persons an equal fundamental moral status regardless of their differing cognitive capacities. More broadly posed, the problem is to specify moral principles that yield intuitively satisfactory implications for the treatment of human individuals and other individual animals given that cognitive capacities differ across species and individuals. A search for a resolution of the Singer problem leads to disappointing results. (shrink)

On 10 December 1948, the General Assembly ofthe United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a truly historic document, the full text of which is reproduced here. Following this historic act, the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories." Jacques Maritain was (...) actively involved in the drafting of the Declaration, especially its clauses regarding freedom of conscience and religious expression. (shrink)

In this pathbreaking study, Axel Honneth argues that "the struggle for recognition" is, and should be, at the center of social conflicts. Moving smoothly between moral philosophy and social theory, Honneth offers insights into such issues as the social forms of recognition and nonrecognition, the moral basis of interaction in human conflicts, the relation between the recognition model and conceptions of modernity, the normative basis of social theory, and the possibility of mediating between Hegel and Kant.

How can liberal democracy best be realized in a world fraught with conflicting new forms of identity politics and intensifying conflicts over culture? This book brings unparalleled clarity to the contemporary debate over this question. Maintaining that cultures are themselves torn by conflicts about their own boundaries, Seyla Benhabib challenges the assumption shared by many theorists and activists that cultures are clearly defined wholes. She argues that much debate--including that of "strong" multiculturalism, which sees cultures as distinct pieces of a (...) mosaic--is dominated by this faulty belief, one with grave consequences for how we think injustices among groups should be redressed and human diversity achieved. Benhabib masterfully presents an alternative approach, developing an understanding of cultures as continually creating, re-creating, and renegotiating the imagined boundaries between "us" and "them." Drawing on contemporary cultural politics from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States, Benhabib develops a double-track model of deliberative democracy that permits maximum cultural contestation within the official public sphere as well as in and through social movements and the institutions of civil society. Agreeing with political liberals that constitutional and legal universalism should be preserved at the level of polity, she nonetheless contends that such a model is necessary to resolve multicultural conflicts. Analyzing in detail the transformation of citizenship practices in European Union countries, Benhabib concludes that flexible citizenship, certain kinds of legal pluralism and models of institutional powersharing are quite compatible with deliberative democracy, as long as they are in accord with egalitarian reciprocity, voluntary self-ascription, and freedom of exit and association. The Claims of Culture offers invaluable insight to all those, whether students or scholars, lawyers or policymakers, who strive to bridge the gap between the theory and practice of cultural politics in the twenty-first century. (shrink)

Offers new strategies for social workers concerned with political action and social justice. It explores ways of developing practice frameworks, paradigms and principles which take advantage of the perspectives offered by postmodern theory.

L'ouvrage s'interroge sur la notion d'humanisme, examinant selon les périodes historiques les définitions qui en ont été données, la question centrale étant de savoir s'il existe une dignité spécifiquement humaine.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Among Those Who helped greatly in the initial stages of this project by making constructive suggestions on my first "caring" papers are Nick Burbules, William Doll, Bruce Fuller, Brian Hill, William Pinar, Mary Anne ...

In this pathbreaking study, Axel Honneth argues that "the struggle for recognition" is, and should be, at the center of social conflicts.

Where society is viewed as an association of equal and autonomous persons, the work of caring for dependents, "love's labors", figure neither in political ...

This volume stages a debate between two philosophers, one North American, the other German, who hold different views of the relation of redistribution to ...

La notion de " qualité de la vie " est dans l'air du temps. Les réflexions qui suivent l'abordent sous l'angle médical. Prenons un exemple. Dans le traitement des maladies chroniques, il ne suffit plus de prouver qu'un schéma thérapeutique nouveau est efficace et dépourvu de toxicité. Il faut prouver qu'à efficacité et toxicité comparables à celles du traitement standard, le nouveau traitement donne aux malades une qualité de vie meilleure. Ainsi l'hypertension artérielle est facilement contrôlée par toutes sortes de (...) médicaments peu toxiques aux doses efficaces, mais leurs effets secondaires sont souvent mal supportés, occasionnant des abandons de traitement. De grands efforts ont été déployés depuis dix ans [ex. 11], avec l'aide de l'industrie pharmaceutique, pour trouver quels schémas thérapeutiques traitent l'H. T. A. de façon techniquement satisfaisante, sans détériorer la qualité de vie. On commencera par observer que faire intervenir des considérations de quantité-qualité de vie pour aider à résoudre un "dilemme" médical n'est pas une nouveauté. Ce qui est relativement nouveau, dans nos sociétés démocratiques, est l'effort fait pour rendre ces considérations explicites, les argumenter publiquement, justifier les choix qu'on est obligé de faire, en raisonnant sur le nombre et la valeur des années de vie "gagnées" selon les stratégies thérapeutiques. Tout le monde n'aime pas ce genre de calcul. Schématiquement, l'aversion pour les arguments du type quantité-qualité de la vie dénote une préférence pour des théories morales d'inspiration déontologique, tandis que le recours à ce type d'argument dénote une préférence pour des théories d'inspiration utilitariste. On suivra d'abord les utilitaristes en définissant l'action bonne, ou la décision éthique, comme celle qui maximise une quantité pondérée par une qualité. On montrera que, s'étant vaillamment lancés sur la voie de la rationalité calculatrice, les théoriciens de la lignée utilitariste ont mis en évidence les paradoxes et apories auxquels elle aboutit, dans le domaine de la santé comme ailleurs. Leurs ardeurs rationnelles en ont été tempérées de scepticisme. On rejoindra alors les tenants de la position déontologique, en posant un principe du caractère "sacré" de la vie humaine, qui exclut absolument le calcul qu'une vie a plus ou moins de valeur qu'une autre. On verra qu'en fait, par compassion ou réalisme, les partisans du respect " absolu " ont toujours subrepticement réintroduit dans la pratique les nuances relatives qu'ils récusent en théorie. Si dans les faits chacun finit par frôler la solution de l'autre, il reste qu'il y a là deux manières différentes dans leur esprit d'affronter des choix difficiles. Cela est important à considérer. En effet les solutions procédurales, qui permettent de ne pas prendre position sur le fond, et d'aboutir néanmoins à des décisions par voie négociée, restent inconfortables si les parties en présence ne comprennent pas leurs désaccords. (shrink)