Luis Villoro, Mexican philosopher, reflects in this essay that "in a liberal democracy, which is supposed to exist in our countries would be another kind of democracy . Several authors call "republican democracy or community."
What democracy? Because there could be two types of democracy: democracy "liberal" and democracy some authors call "Republican" or "community." Again and could be judged by its results.
liberal democracy, an expression of capitalism, today's modern, is what has caused the ills that currently have, as claimed by three Western philosophers Jurgen Habermas, David Held and Will Kimlicka. The "capitalist globalization" - state-led West to an unjust exploitation of workers "to" threats to the natural environment "and" global injustices "in an" ill-structured society. " To these evils we usually react - the authors continue, "the refuge in traditions that lead to intolerance and religious fundamentalism."
your opinion, correct in regard to the wrongs caused by Western capitalism. But it is also their remedy? No. I think this is totally inadequate. Good intentions will not suffice as they may think the three authors to achieve this new order based on universal human rights, compliance with which has been so often violated.
Is not it naive to think that, against the evils of global capitalism, the authors note, enough to appeal to universal human rights? The validity of the appeal rights to the will, ignores, however, the real causes, economic and social prevent the execution of these rights in all societies.
face the evils of capitalism, it seems that the only remedy would be to walk into a different order, and even opposite, global capitalism.
Because the hegemony of capitalism has been accompanied by unwelcome effects such as depletion of natural resources in technology, the primacy of instrumental reason against theoretical science, and social and political order, the selfish individualism against the primacy the common good.
What could be the alternative? Whatever should be one that would eliminate or at least lessen the harm caused by modern capitalism.
"Democracy" etymologically means "people power" but there are two types of real power of the people who respond to two different areas of people's power: that democracy can be called "liberal" democracy, "Republican."
Democracy "community" or "Republican" does not exist in most modern Western countries but has some background in Italian Renaissance authors who, in turn, seek to revive the spirit that attributed to the Roman Republic. In Rousseau we find statements of this doctrine, which takes place only in the early stages of democratic revolutions, the U.S. (in its current anti-federalist) and France (in the Jacobin party.) Republican democracy has in common with EU democracy.
The first republican ideas were intended to maintain or restore the life of small communities of agrarian character. Remember the defense, both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, an organization opposed agrarian economy to industrialization, to be secured, in his opinion, to preserve the purity and simplicity of republican virtues themselves or community.
In the French Revolution, Hannah Arendt stresses the idealization of community life of the French countryside, which underlies the ideology of Robespierre and the Jacobin Club.
Linked to this referral to local communities is also at the beginning of republicanism, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe necessary control of rulers by real people. The joint government with popular control, which proposes Machiavelli, author of the Discourses on Livy Aims to restore the popular monitoring view that he believes in the old Roman republic. The rotation in public office and the possibility of revocation of the mandates were kept in the British community tradition and procedures to prevent the consolidation of a stratum of power over citizens and promoting direct democracy. Some states came to record similar measures in their constitutions, most notably that of Virginia, Jefferson. The followers of Rousseau, in his criticism of purely representative democracy, took a similar direction.
Since its inception, the mentality is different from the liberal Republican in subordinating personal interests to the interests of the social whole. The historian of American independence revolution, George Wood, republicanism highlights the following feature: "The sacrifice of individual interests for the benefit of the greater good of all, he writes, was the essence of republicanism, coming to represent for Americans The idealistic goal of their revolution. "
Thus, compared to a liberal democracy, which is supposed to exist in our countries would be another type of democracy. Several authors call "republican democracy or community." This would be a form of democracy than democracy There is supposed liberal in modern developed countries.
It would, therefore, an alternative that can justify different political positions. In that sense, I think MacIntyre correct formulation: "the fundamental moral opposition is that between the liberal individualism, in one version or another, and the Aristotelian tradition, in one version or another."
Indeed, as MacIntyre suggests, against the individualism of liberalism can oppose another concept that would have its distant predecessor in the Aristotelian tradition. It is precisely in this tradition that we can find contrary conceptions of liberalism, namely, communitarianism and republicanism.
However, the confrontation between liberalism and the ideas that oppose him, could be summed up in two different ideas on the subject and its relationship to moral standards.
The concept of personal morality, in relation to the normative order is different in either theoretical model, the liberal and the community. In the liberal conception, the moral subject should be a free agent coerced, it must be willingly subject to rules in the formulation of which was not involved, its main characteristic is autonomy. As subjects moral all people are equal and have, therefore, the same rights and duties. This idea of \u200b\u200bthe person as moral subject is expressed differently in the various philosophical doctrines. In the metaphor of "social contract", rationality and freedom characterize members agree, the universalizing force of law requires equality of these subjects.
The idea of \u200b\u200bautonomous moral person had their most rigorous in the philosophy of Kant, but had its followers in the two centuries. In contemporary times, now consider John Rawls as the principal exponent of an idea of \u200b\u200bjustice in line liberal. So much for liberal theory, based on individualism.
But compared to other current liberalism can occur due to old philosophical voices. So in the current contemporary philosophy, Alasdair MacIntyre, retrieves the Aristotelian tradition ideas. The choice and pursuit of it is what determines the moral person. And goodness is tied at the end (telos). "Call x good ... or that's the kind of x to choose any that needed a x for the purpose you are looking characteristically x". Is the concept of full human life, conceived as a unit, which provides identity and sense the person, as a subject capable of exercising virtues. But man is a social being and its purpose can not be separated from the roles they play in your community. "Whatever is good for me must be good for those who inhabit these roles. As such, inherited from the past of my family, my city, my tribe, my nation, a variety of duties, inheritance, correct expectations and obligations. They are the data obtained in my life, my moral starting point. Conferred in part to my own moral particularity. "
Given this conception of the individual person in society, identifiable by their notion of good and endorses the aims, linked to its role in the community, the idea a pure subject of choice, like Kant before their purposes and abstracted from their social situation appears as an empty body. To attempt to capture the moral subject is stripped of all its constituent features. The conception of Rawls, who follows the Kantian conception, is an example of the strategy to design the universal principles that would choose a subject impartial by abstraction of what constitutes a real subject, individually, with the election of their own aims and values. That subject is the "Man Without Qualities" exchangeable for any other to be a universal subject, has lost its identity.
However, as indicated MacIntyre, against the individualism of liberalism can oppose another concept that would have its distant predecessor in the Aristotelian tradition. It is precisely in this tradition that we find the opposing conceptions of liberalism, namely, communitarianism and republicanism.
These two ideas of the firm give rise to two concepts that emphasize one or another sense of justice. The first favors justice and equality, which makes no distinction between people, as all are covered with the same dignity and have equal rights. The second emphasizes justice as recognition of the identity of each person, because people are irreplaceable and each one has different needs that must be addressed.
Both ideas of justice can be used to justify, in practice, two separate political agendas. Justice and equality requires the fair treatment under the law to all groups and individuals, they all are due the same rights and obligations, without accepting any privileged position. Thus was ethical ideal of the struggle against the old regime, a radical ideological weapon in the destruction of a society based on social hierarchies and privileges, and still budget modern liberal democracy. Justice as recognition of identities requires, however, respect for differences and attention to the actual inequalities that need to be repaired. It has therefore been excluded groups claim the prevailing consensus and is currently an ethical justification of the movements of marginalized groups, who claim their private rights against legal equality ignored. Again and notion of justice require different policies. "With the politics of equal dignity for all," writes Charles Taylor, "sets out what is supposed to be universally the same, an identical basket of rights and immunities, with the politics of difference, which asks us to recognize is the unique identity of this individual or group, their distinctiveness from everyone else. "
is, in short, two conceptions of moral and political subject. Should go beyond these two conceptions of the moral subject: the subject of a pure, abstract, universalized in the Kantian tradition and a person standing, who follows his own purposes in a society, republicanism and communitarianism. In the current debate on justice, lies a new form of opposition between two conceptions of how individuals belong to the social whole.
They emphasized the differences between these two concepts:
The liberal, in its various versions, can be characterized by the following notes:
1. The individual is the only moral agent. In fact, it only exists as an independent subject.
society is explained by the individuals. It is the result of concerted action. Individuals are conceived as prior to society, "state of nature." By their interactions give rise to the society and a free agreement, the State. Individual liberty itself places limits on the agreement that creates the political society.
1. If the individual is the source of political society is also an end. The society is a means of achieving of the individual. Therefore any collective purpose can overcome the individual's freedom.
2. Political society fulfills this purpose by ensuring the basic rights of freedom condition. These are inviolable by the company.
3. The public space offers scope for the performance of individual liberties. It is, therefore, the place of competition between individuals and groups of people.
4. Competition should occur within the framework of tolerance and respect for basic rights, allowing the mutually beneficial cooperation.
conceptions Community in its different versions, presented, however, notes the contrary. In excess of brevity, we could summarize as follows:
1. Preexist the individual society. The individual is born and takes place within a social horizon that the foregoing. Presupposes the moral person. There is a collective, historical, to which the individual belongs.
2. The company says individual characteristics, it can not be conceived prior to society. Therefore, society does not arise from a contract between individuals. There is a tacit agreement, after which precedes any individual.
3. Ends individual's place in the community. Personal order includes the pursuit of a common good. Therefore, the purpose of the community is the common good which makes the good of individuals.
4. Along with individual rights are collective rights, status of implementation of common property.
5. In the community, competition between individuals should be replaced by the pursuit of a proper end of all.
6. In the community, solidarity goes beyond mutual tolerance. No full justice without solidarity.
There are thus two conceptions a democracy. Because the concept of a liberal democracy is not unique. There is another kind of democracy which many consider superior: Community or republican democracy.
The opposition between these positions (the liberal and republican community) not only has theoretical implications but may also affect political agendas.
liberalism in philosophy and politics, is an expression of modern individualism. Republicanism and communitarianism, express a possible future project renewed community. Again and theoretical position have real consequences in law.
Source: Electronic Journal Desinformémonos , number 15, January 2011.
0 comments:
Post a Comment