Michael Walzer

This paper examines the dynamics of hostile takeovers (HT's) as a form of corporate warfare. There are a number of compelling reasons for believing this to be an accurate approximation to corporate reality and therefore an appropriate analogy. In circumstances where it is all-too easy for either of the protagonists to act unethically (Berle and Means, The modern corporation and private property, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1991), there is an evident need for an appropriate template through which to analyse and evaluate the ethical dilemmas that HT's inevitably raise (Armour and Skeel, Georget Law J 95:1727, 2007)—whilst also, where possible, employing its prescriptions as a means of corporate conflict resolution. This paper evaluates just war theory (JWT) as one such template. In seeking a conceptually adaptable framework for analysing, interpreting and articulating antagonistic behaviour during a HT, it became apparent in the course of the research that JWT provided a potentially useful and viable template within which to pursue the above. The research questions centre not necessarily on whether this template could in some way be a substitute for statutory and regulatory constraints on unethical conduct but, rather, whether it might better inform all stakeholders of the importance of ethically informed restraint in the interest of the greater good.

Since its publication in 1977, Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars has been the most influential work and the dominant view on traditional Just War Theory. Through his 2009 book Killing in War, Jeff McMahan directly challenges Walzer’s war principles and proposes a novel and revolutionary theory of the ethics in war that, according to some reviewers1, could shake the current understanding of jus in bello.

This paper contrasts five contemporary political philosophies – neutralism, postmodernism, pluralism, anarchism, and patriotism – and argues that the latter is superior. This is because of how patriotism relates to the various political ideologies, including liberalism, conservatism, socialism, nationalism, feminism, and so on. A new, patriotic conception of the political spectrum is then advanced, one based on how people should respond to conflict: those on the left would have us do so with conversation; those in the centre with negotiation; and those on the right with force.

This is a new version of the paper originally published in Public Affairs Quarterly 15, no. 3 (July 2001): 193–217; and as chapter 1 of my Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009).

El presente artículo tiene como propósito exponer el pensamiento comunitarista de Michael Walzer acerca de la educación, manifestado en su obra “Las Esferas de la Justicia” (1983). Primero, se explican algunos conceptos que articulan la obra referida como lo son
las nociones de bien social, igualdad compleja y tiranía. Luego se examina la operativa de la educación como un bien social autónomo y su vinculación con la igualdad, el pluralismo y la democracia; resaltando aquí la crítica que el autor efectúa al sistema de vouchers o vales
educativos – idea desarrollada por Milton Friedman-. Finalmente , se interpreta al sistema chileno en base al análisis expuesto y se concluye que el criterio del mercado en la educación segrega socialmente, erosiona la democracia y tiende hacia una sociedad tiránica

At stake in the effort to justify war is not simply some academic exercise. We ought not to aim for a series of justifications, legal or ethical, that will answer the question of when wars are justified and how they may be justly fought. War, like any deeply human activity, will exceed all efforts by humans to control and to regulate it. What is needed, rather, is a determination to recall that justice, and not merely strategy and utility, has a place in war. Instead of justifications, what just war thinking offers is the insistent determination that those who fight not blind themselves to the illumination of justice amidst the fog of war.

Στην παρούσα εργασία γίνεται αναφορά αρχικά σε βασικές έννοιες που επηρεάζουν τη συμπεριφορά των κρατών, όπως η φύση του διεθνούς συστήματος και η ισορροπία ισχύος προκειμένου να κατανοηθεί το γιατί οι κρατικοί δρώντες καταφεύγουν πολλές φορές σε πολεμικές αναμετρήσεις. Ακολούθως παρουσιάζεται η παρούσα ισορροπία δυνάμεων μεταξύ Ελλάδας και Τουρκίας και οι επιπτώσεις επ’ αυτής, μετά την πιθανή προμήθεια αεροσκαφών F-35 και βαλλιστικών συστημάτων S-400 από τη δεύτερη. Στο τελευταίο μέρος ερυενάται το αν και κατά πόσο μια ενδεχόμενη ανατροπή της ισορροπίας δυνάμεων υπέρ της Τουρκίας δικαιολογεί την εκδήλωση προληπτικού χτυπήματος εκ μέρους της Ελλάδας.

Conceptul de „dreptate socială” este, fără îndoială, unul dintre conceptele cheie ale filosofiei politice. În orice caz, el este unul dintre cele mai utilizate concepte de către filosofii politici recenţi. Bănuiala mea este că foarte puţine concepte – precum, spre exemplu, cel de „democraţie” – pot rivaliza din acest
punct de vedere conceptul de „dreptate socială”. Pe ce îmi bazez această bănuială? Pe faptul că, aşa cum se poate constata examinând cărţile sau revistele din acest domeniu, dreptatea socială este unul dintre cele mai abordate şi mai dezbătute subiecte din filosofia politică a ultimilor cincizeci de ani.
        Această situaţie nu este rezultatul întâmplării. Problema identificării principiilor organizării drepte a unei societăţi este considerată – şi, fără îndoială, este – una dintre cele mai importante probleme ale filosofiei politice. Pentru mulţi filosofi politici, ea este chiar cea mai importantă problemă a filosofiei politice, la fel cum dreptatea este cea dintâi virtute a unei „societăţi bune”. John Rawls, spre exemplu, filosoful care a avut cea mai mare contribuţie la concentrarea filosofiei politice recente pe problema dreptăţii sociale (din păcate, de multe ori în detrimentul celorlalte probleme importante ale acesteia), şi-a dezvoltat celebra sa teorie a dreptăţii sociale (şi) ca urmare a convingerii că dreptatea „este prima virtute a instituţiilor sociale, la fel cum este adevărul pentru sistemele de gândire. Oricât de elegantă sau economică ar fi, o teorie trebuie respinsă sau revizuită dacă nu este adevărată; la fel, indiferent de cât de eficiente sau bine organizate ar fi, instituţiile trebuie reformate sau abolite dacă sunt nedrepte. (…) Singurul lucru care ne permite să acceptăm o teorie eronată este lipsa uneia mai bune; în mod analog, o nedreptate este tolerabilă numai atunci când este necesară pentru a evita o nedreptate şi mai mare. Fiind primele virtuţi ale activităţilor umane, adevărul şi dreptatea sunt de necompromis”.
      Conceptul de „dreptate socială” este, însă, şi unul dintre cele mai controversate concepte ale filosofiei politice. Foarte puţine aspecte legate de acest concept nu sunt înconjurate de controverse şi dezbateri argumentative. Cred că nu greşesc dacă afirm că există doar trei astfel de aspecte. Primul este acela că
dreptatea, fie ca virtute individuală, fie ca virtute a unei societăţi, constă, în esenţă, în a da fiecăruia ceea ce i se cuvine (sau ceea ce i se datorează, ceea ce este îndreptăţit să primească). Al doilea este acela că, spre deosebire de conceptul de „dreptate distributivă”, introdus în vocabularul filosofic încă de Aristotel,
conceptul de „dreptate socială” este unul mult mai recent, utilizat pentru prima dată abia în prima jumătate a secolului XIX. În sfârşit, al treilea este acela că dreptatea socială nu trebuie confundată cu dreptatea legală sau retributivă (dreptatea în pedepsirea celor vinovaţi de infracţiuni).
      Unii autori ar introduce pe lista aspectelor necontroversate legate de conceptul de „dreptate socială” şi un al patrulea aspect. Mă refer la ideea că dreptatea socială se distinge în mod clar de caritate. Este adevărat, cei mai mulţi filosofi operează o astfel de distincţie. De obicei, caritatea este prezentată ca o
virtute morală privată şi strict voluntară faţă de ceilalţi membri ai societăţii, în vreme ce dreptatea este prezentată ca o virtute sau o datorie morală a cărei respectare poate fi impusă (enforced) în mod legitim de către stat. Există însă şi filosofi care au contestat, mai mult sau mai puţin explicit, legitimitatea şi semnificaţia morală a acestei distincţii. Doi dintre aceşti filosofi sunt Allen Buchanan şi Jeremy Waldron. Ambii au încercat să arate că, de fapt, şi respectarea exigenţelor carităţii poate fi uneori impusă în mod legitim din punct de vedere moral de către stat. Buchanan a făcut chiar mai mult: a încercat să demonstreze caracterul problematic al tuturor modalităţilor prin care filosofii politici au încercat să traseze o distincţie netă între dreptatea socială şi caritate.
        Unele dintre cele mai importante controverse declanşate de conceptul de „dreptate socială” sunt cele legate de definirea, de specificarea şi de legitimitatea acestui concept. Prima este, în esenţă, o controversă în privinţa răspunsului la următoarea întrebare: care este cadrul conceptual care surprinde cel mai
bine trăsătura fundamentală a dreptăţii şi nedreptăţii sociale? A doua este o controversă în privinţa exigenţelor sau a principiilor „corecte” sau „adecvate” ale dreptăţii sociale. În sfărşit, a treia este o controversă pe marginea acceptabilităţii apelului la conceptul de „dreptate socială”.
      În cea mai mare parte a capitolului de faţă prezint pe scurt principalele idei, poziţii şi argumente invocate de filosofii politici recenţi în cadrul fiecăreia dintre aceste controverse. Pentru a respecta specificul unui capitol introductiv, am încercat să fiu cât mai imparţíal în prezentarea lor. Există însă şi locuri în care am exprimat sau măcar am sugerat propriile mele opinii. Sper totuşi că acest lucru nu îl va împiedica prea mult pe cititor să caute să-şi formeze şi să-şi întemeieze cât mai solid propriile sale opinii cu privire la chestiunile în dispută.

Se analiza en este libro una obra esencial para la filosofía política contemporánea como es «Las Esferas de la Justicia» (1983), del reconocido académico estadounidense Michael Walzer, profesor emérito del Institute for Advanced Study de la Universidad de Princeton.

En el capítulo I se comienza contextualizando dicha obra a partir de tres corrientes de pensamiento: el liberalismo, el neoliberalismo y el comunitarismo. Luego, se exhibe llanamente la concepción del autor acerca de ideales como la justicia, el pluralismo y la igualdad compleja. Se concluye que bienes sociales distintos deberían ser distribuidos por razones distintas, en arreglo a diferentes criterios y por distintos agentes; y que todas estas diferencias derivan de la comprensión de los bienes sociales como productos inevitables del particularismo histórico y cultural de una comunidad dada.

En el capítulo II se estudia específicamente la esfera de la justicia referida a la educación, concebida por Walzer como un bien social autónomo y cuyos muros deben impedir la influencia de factores externos, tales como el dinero o el poder. ¿Cómo se plantea la tiranía en la esfera de la educación? ¿Los vouchers o vales educativos de Friedman contribuyen al pluralismo? ¿Cuál es el papel de la escuela en una democracia? Interrogantes de este tipo son las que se pretende responder, teniendo como horizonte una sociedad igualitaria libre de dominación.

The main aim of this work is to explore and identify the factors associated with the flaunts in Huntingtonian Universalism which also invariably justifies Civilizational Colonialism and the New Great Game narrative concerning the Faultline sensitive areas of High Asia which includes Kashmir, Hazara, Nuristan, Laghman, Azad Kashmir, Jammu, Himachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Gilgit Baltistan, Chitral, Western Tibet, Western Xinjiang, Badakhshan, Gorno - Badakhshan,
Fergana, Osh, Turkistan region and many neighbouring areas surrounded by the five major mountainous systems of Tien Shan, Pamirs, Karakoram, Hindu Kush and Western Himalayas and the three main river systems of Amu Darya, Syr Darya and Indus. The theoretical foundations of the work lies in an alternative approach to the culture writ large universalism of Huntington based on the use of the constructivist model of Walzer’s reiterative universalism which relates to the study of the richer history of the area in contention. Previous research has not been done before in this context and keeping this in mind the study attempts at answering the question of upon as to whether a possible alternative to study the region could be through Pan-High Asianism based on Western Pahari, Greater Dardic, Trans-Himalayan, Badakhshan and Sogdiana Belts which could possibly lead to HAAIL (High Asian Approaches to International Law).

First, I examine the aspects of the political sovereignty on the Shakespearean stage. In the light of Walter Benjamin’s Origin of the German baroque drama (1928) and of Carl Schmitt’s answer to Benjamin in Hamlet or Hecuba (1956), I show that Shakespeare stages the mortality of the political bodies and the new sovereignty of the plotter. Urged to master the art and the tempo of the plot, the prince is nonetheless unable to prevent the decomposition of the state. Then, drawing on the Elizabethan drama, I question the contemporary effort towards order and synchronization within the city. Hobbes’s theory of political and juridical representation breaks with the mystical conception of political unity and with any inspired legislation, whereas the civil scene is dedicated to the peace between individuals in order to ensure the possibility of a real autonomy in the private sphere. Reciprocally, this autonomy must consolidate the solutions to the problems of melancholy and skepticism conceptualized in Leviathan. While endorsing the tragedy of human condition and of knowledge already put on stage by Shakespeare, Leviathan prevents Schmitt’s exaltation as well as the « pure » violence which, according to Benjamin, lies in the subject’s state of exception. Yet, through the ghosts that Leviathan cannot tolerate within the public sphere, the Shakespearean stage unravels the mechanisms of perpetual order and synchronization without rejecting the law and the project of autonomy.

Keywords : Melancholy – Skepticism – Law – Discipline – Elizabethan drama – Shakespeare – Walter Benjamin – Carl Schmitt – Hobbes – Leviathan – Behemoth

Ce travail tente de clarifier le débat entre libéraux et communautariens, qui structure le champ de la philosophie politique et morale depuis près de quarante ans. Il propose pour ce faire quatre balises, pouvant servir de grille de lecture générale des enjeux et clivages principaux qui traversent les débats classiques entre libéraux et communautariens.

La tolerancia es un ideal y una práctica que cotiza al alza dentro del universo de valores de las democracias contemporáneas. Esto debe vincularse con la relevancia alcanzada por movimientos políticos e intelectuales, como el comunitarismo o el multiculturalismo, que cuestionan la neutralidad estatal como fórmula para organizar sociedades caracterizadas por el pluralismo de concepciones del bien y formas de vida: habida cuenta de tal pluralismo, cuanto se asume el compromiso con una determinada comunidad de valores como algo ineludible, la tolerancia se presenta como imprescindible para la convivencia.

El pensamiento liberal ha acusado recibo de todo esto: la cuestión de cómo articular los rasgos diferenciales de los grupos preservando al tiempo un marco de convivencia liberal se convirtió en un asunto fundamental para la teoría política liberal de final del siglo XX. El planteamiento más significativo al respecto es, sin duda, el del liberalismo político de John Rawls, con su idea de la tolerancia como lo que hace posible un acuerdo sobre el orden político para una sociedad liberal pluralista. Sin embargo, otros filósofos contemporáneos muy influyentes también han reflexionado sobre la tolerancia: es el caso de Michael Walzer, John Gray, Richard Rorty o Joseph Raz, quienes, de maneras muy distintas coinciden en asumir el punto de vista de Isaiah Berlin de que existe una multiplicidad de valores políticos que no son necesariamente reconciliables entre sí.

El libro que el lector tiene entre sus manos se propone ofrecer una exposición crítica de los teóricos citados. Tal exposición ofrece una visión de su obra centrada en la solución que proponen para afrontar los problemas derivados de la diversidad social conflictiva, lo cual permite al autor del libro desarrollar su propuesta normativa referente a cómo debe entenderse y justificarse la tolerancia. Además, el libro ofrece una completa revisión histórica de las defensas modernas de la tolerancia, desde sus orígenes teológicos, que permite apreciar su continuidad en el pensamiento contemporáneo.  Igualmente, entra a considerar cómo ha evolucionado sociológicamente el valor de la tolerancia en las democracias modernas, las discusiones recientes acerca del concepto de tolerancia, o el cuestionado lugar que corresponde a la tolerancia en el contexto de un Estado social y democrático de derecho.

Nota: Debido a una errata de la que el autor no es responsable, y se está en trámite de corrección, el título aparece de manera incorrecta en la portada del libro y la página 3.

This article examines the tragic dimension of political action which, according to the interpretation of Isaiah Berlin, was expounded by Machiavelli where he defended the political priority of civic values of the classical world with the incompatible predominance of the Christian values of his time. The interpretation of Berlin is discussed first and then the article continues reflecting on the harm that derives from failing to take into account the tragic component of political decisions. However, flaws of adequacy and consistency are noted in the pluralistic philosophy developed by Berlin beginning with the proposition that not all ends are compatible with each other. These flaws in the philosophy of Berlin can be corrected if one chooses not to base pluralism in the incommensurable, taken as an inevitable fact. Instead, it is proposed to interpret pluralism as a contingent result of moral and political interaction.
According to Berlin, toleration is pluralism political correlation. However, it is debatable that the former can be derived from the latter.  Similarly, the manner in which pluralism sets its own limits appears to be inconsistent. This involves toleration claimed by Berlin becomes as uncertain as liberty and autonomy in the context of Machiavelli’s thought. In this connection, it will be submitted an interpretation of consequentialism as propounded by Machiavelli suitable for managing the risk in democratic societies.

The problem of “dirty hands” concerns the possibility that there are situations in which, no matter what one does, there is no way to avoid committing a moral wrong. By presenting a taxonomy, this paper contends that the different ways of responding to the problem correspond to different positions on the classic metaphysical theme of “the One and the Many.” It is then suggested that the best, because most realistic, response aligns with an approach that would have us move “towards One, as Many.”

Human rights have made mass murder and genocide more, rather than less, likely.

A previous version of this paper appears as chapter 3 of my Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2009).

Michael Walzer's theory of complex equality is examined to see whether it is, as some of its critics have claimed, a relativistic theory of justice. In order to do this, the theory itself is set in the context of the so-called 'liberal-communitarian debate', since it is best considered a communitarian theory. Some of its more important aspects are made clear, especially its basis in what Walzer calls the "common life" of a political community and in a specific theory about the social origins of social goods (Chapter One).

Then the views of four critics (Joshua Cohen, Susan Moller - Okin, Ronald Dworkin and Norman Daniels) are considered, and Walzer is defended against charges of relativism. A specific notion of incommensurability is introduced and attributed to Walzer, and his notion of a universal, if minimal, code of moral prohibitions is introduced, both by way of responding to the relativism charge (Chapter Two).

The defense is continued by way of offering a contextualist, historicistic reading of Walzer that stresses his emphasis on moral justification rather than moral truth. The charge that his theory lacks critical distance, which is linked to the relativism charge, is considered, and the conclusion reached that while on the basis of the Walzer's writings so far we should consider that there is a possible moral conservatism (linked to his communitarianism) inherent in his  view, his thinking appears to be in transition. He may be moving out of the communitarian camp, into the space between the liberals and the communitarians (Chapter 3).

This is a paper presented at a workshop on Christianity and War promoted in 1991 by the 
Nuova Corsia, Milan. The paper starts with a controversy between Norberto Bobbio and a few Italian colleagues occasioned by the first Iraq war and then proceeds to examine arguments form Kelsen and Walzer on just war to which Bobbio and his partners referred in the course of the controversy.

La tradizione filosofica occidentale identifica di norma l'ingiustizia con l'assenza di quelle proprietà ideali che definiscono una società come perfettamente giusta. Ma cosa impedisce di pensare all'ingiustizia in altri termini rispetto alla pura e semplice assenza di giustizia? Muovendo da questo interrogativo, il libro sviluppa un'originale prospettiva teorica per affrontare alcune delle questioni più urgenti che assillano le società contemporanee. Il baricentro dell'analisi si sposta infatti sulle asimmetrie di potere che offendono la dignità di milioni di esseri umani su scala globale. Sui mali comuni della crudeltà fisica, dell'umiliazione simbolica, del dominio culturale, economico e politico. È la negazione pratica di queste ingiustizie a definire l'idea di giustizia, rappresentando così la migliore premessa teorica per la costruzione conflittuale di una società più giusta.

Qu’est-ce que la rationalité pratique? Et quelle rôle joue-t-elle dans les pratiques normatives qui structures notre vie sociale et politique? Ce livre propose une réflexion sur les différentes manières de penser le rapport entre rationalité et vie sociale et politique. Il le fait à partir d’une conception de la rationalité comme institution sociale, dont l’auteur retrace la généalogie à l’intérieur de la philosophie politique anglo-américaine contemporaine. Cette réflexion autour des sources de la rationalité vise à rouvrir le débat sur le rapport complexe et incontournable entre formes de rationalité et formes politique. Elle nous montre pourquoi si nous voulons changer de politique nous devons tout d'abord changer d'épistémologie, et que par conséquent une réflexion sur l'épistémologie des théories politiques constitue bien plus que l'antichambre de la théorie politique: elle en est un élément constituant. Le livre montre comment, à partir du refus d’une opposition par trop stérile entre conceptions critiques et justificatives de la rationalité politique, une voie alternative se dessine. Il s’agit d’une voie qui s’appuie sur une conception expressive de notre rapport à la raison, dont l’œuvre d’auteurs comme Charles Taylor, Stanley Cavell et Alasdair MacIntyre nous indique la voie.

The general failure of assimilation policies in the Western countries and the growth in the demand for recognition from different people whose identity is ignored have enabled the continuation of various debates within the multiculturalism as an identity politics. Considering the approaches advocating multiculturalism, it is seen that libertarian and communitarian approaches are brought forward as two dominant approaches. While the libertarian approach gives priority to individual rights, the communitarian approach argues that the priority should be given to community and group rights. Both approaches base their claims on different reasons in this context. In this study, firstly, it will be emphasized why identity has become such a foreground nowadays, then it will be focused on the relationship between this and multiculturalism in the context of libertarian and communitarian approaches, and the main paradoxes in these approaches. So, it is aimed to contribute to the scientific literature on this subject by making a unique evaluation in a critical perspective on the dominant in multiculturalism. As the libertarian approach in terms of multiculturalism has included various paradoxes, such as over identification basic human principles like equality and freedom as individual-centered to liberalism and criticism of higher social formations at this point, the communitarian approach that places community and group identities to forefront, and ignores individual differences among them has also various paradoxes in itself.

This entry summarizes four important theories of justice, viz. those by Nozick, Rawls, Walzer, and Marx. The crux of Nozick’s theory is that one owns oneself, one’s labor, and its fruits. Hence, even if one morally ought to donate money to help the poor, the government would violate one’s right of self-ownership by forcing one to help them. Rawls’ theory starts from the thought that one’s starting point in life is undeserved. Hence the contingent differences arising therefrom are morally irrelevant. Thus Rawls argues that the social arrangement agreed upon by representatives of different social classes when knowledge of such differences is to be suppressed will be a just arrangement. Rawls further argues that the difference principle will be agreed upon, according to which social and economic inequalities cannot be allowed to exist unless they are to be arranged to the benefit of the least advantaged. Michael Walzer’s theory is pluralist, because any good that is social in nature is a suitable subject for distributive justice. His theory is particularist because each social good must be distributed according to its social meaning in a particular time and place. When a good is dominant—if individuals can command a wide range of other goods by having it—the social meanings of these other goods are not observed in their distribution. Dominance, rather than monopoly, is the culprit of injustice. Analytical Marxists disagree among themselves as to whether capitalist exploitation is unjust. Allen Wood argues that, for Marx, capitalist exploitation is just. Ziyad Husami maintains that, on Marx’s view, capitalist exploitation is unjust. Gary Young contends that Marx thinks that although the wage-labor exchange is just in the contract stage, it becomes unjust in the performance of the contract. Richard Miller argues that, for Marx, capitalism is neither just nor unjust, because justice, like phlogiston, does not exist.

The ‘liberal-communitarian’ debate arose within anglophone political philosophy during the 1980s. This essay opens with an account of the main outlines of the debate, showing how liberals and communitarians tended to confront each other with opposing interpretations of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice (1999; originally published in 1971) and Political Liberalism (2005; originally published in 1993). The essay then proceeds to discuss four forms of ‘liberalism after communitarianism’: Michael Freeden’s account of liberalism as an ideology; Joseph Raz and Will Kymlicka’s perfectionist liberalisms; the liberalism of value pluralists such as Isaiah Berlin and Bernard Williams; and Judith N. Shklar’s liberalism of fear. It concludes with the suggestion that there are times when liberals of every kind should set aside their ideology, even if only temporarily, in order to listen to their interlocutors with truly open minds.

Although long-established military virtues, such as honor, courage and loyalty, are what most armed forces today still use as guiding principles in an effort to enhance the moral behavior of soldiers, much depends on whether the military virtues adhered to by these militaries suit a particular mission or military operation. Clearly, the beneficiaries of these military virtues are the soldiers themselves, fellow-soldiers, and military organizations, yet there is little that regulates the behavior of soldiers towards civilian populations. As a result, troops trained for combat in today's missions sometimes experience difficulty in adjusting to the less aggressive ways of working needed to win the hearts and minds of local populations after major combat is over. It can be argued that today's missions call for virtues that are more inclusive than the traditional ones, which are mainly about enhancing military effectiveness, but a convincing case can be made that a lot can already be won by interpreting these traditional virtues in different ways.

This volume offers an integrated approach to the main traditional virtues, exploring their possible relevance and proposing new ways of interpretation that are more in line with the military tasks of the 21st century.

The contribution shows some concrete examples, emblematic of different phases of his intellectual itinerary, of how Danilo Zolo combined theoretical rigor with an almost daily immersion in the practical and political dimension. What emerges is a realism that aims at understanding suffering, pain, evil, the

Dieses Seminar bietet eine Einführung in die philosophische Sozialkritik an. Im Zentrum steht dabei die Tradition der sogenannten „Frankfurter Schule“, welche nicht nur stets originelle Beiträge zur philosophischen Diskussion über Gesellschaftskritik hat liefern können, sondern auch den allgemeinen Diskurs über „Kritische Theorie“ schon einhundert Jahre lang tiefgreifend geprägt und stets transformiert hat. In einem ersten Schritt werden die ideengeschichtlichen Hintergründe der „Kritischen Theorie“ in den Werken von Hegel, Marx und Nietzsche untersucht. Der zweite Teil des Seminars beschäftigt sich mit den klassischen gesellschaftskritischen Ansätzen von Horkheimer, Adorno, Foucault und Habermas. Zum Abschluss werden noch einige gegenwärtigen Versuche, die Kritische Theorie weiter zu entwickeln, diskutiert.

Savaşların meşru zeminde gerekçelendirilmesi ve adil biçimde yürütülen temellere oturulmasına yönelik düşüncelerin tarihi ve felsefi kökleri oldukça eskidir. Bu türden etik meselelere modern teorik bir yaklaşım geliştirmeyi deneyen bir çalışma, siyaset teorisyeni ve entelektüel Michael Walzer’e aittir. Walzer’in karşıtı olduğu ABD’nin Vietnam müdahalesi sırasında savaşlara ilişkin geliştirdiği düşünceleri, “Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations” adıyla sistematik halde ilk kez 1977 yılında İngilizce yayımlanmıştır. Bu eser, “Haklı Savaş, Haksız Savaş: Tarihten Örnekleler Desteklenmiş Ahlaki Bir Tez” adıyla 2006 yılında Türkçeye çevrilmiştir.

A háborúba szálló államok majdnem minden esetben igyekeznek megindokolni, hogy miért háborúznak. Ezeket az indokokat háborús ideológiának nevezzük. Manapság az egyik legismertebb, és legkidolgozottabb háborús ideológia az igazságos háború elmélete, amely főként az Egyesült Államokhoz és a NATO-hoz kapcsolódik. Ez a teória azonban nem a 20. század szülötte, hanem eredete a görög, latin és ókeresztény ókorba nyúlik vissza, amikortól kezdve egészen a korai újkorig töretlen volt a fejlődése és szisztematizálása. A 18. és a 20. század első fele között azonban az elmélet fejlődése és alkalmazása, néhány kivételtől eltekintve, háttérbe szorult, és csak a 20. század közepén –köszönhetően Paul Ramsey amerikai protestáns gondolkodónak, és Michael Walzer amerikai professzornak – került újra elő. Az alábbiakban az ő elképzeléseiket mutatom be.

Most states who are waging war endeavour to justify their wars. These justifications are the ideologies of warfare. Recently one of the most known and detailed ideology is the just war theory, which connects first of all to the US and the NATO. However, just war theory originated fromthe Greek, Latin and ancient Christian antiquity, from which the theory was developing and was being systematized to the early modern age. However, between the 18thand 20thcenturies the development and application of the theory, let alone some exceptions, was thrown into the shade, until in second half of the 20th century the protestant thinker Paul Ramsey, and the Harvard professor Michael Walzer revived it. Below I am dealing with the revived form the just war theory.

No pretendo en este ensayo establecer forzadamente una especie de Teoría Antropológica o de Filosofía Política sistemática, en base a fragmentos dispersos contenidos en la obra del admirable genio francés de Blaise Pascal. Mi objetivo es más sencillo: Dice relación con mostrar al lector, de una manera más o menos estructurada, las reflexiones de tal matemático, físico y filósofo, en torno a materias concernientes al hombre y la epistemología- en tanto ser consciente de su finitud - y a tópicos de la Filosofía Política, como lo son la Justicia y el Derecho.

En virtud de lo dicho, comenzaré con una breve descripción de la vida del referido autor, su contexto filosófico-temporal y expondré algunas nociones sobre su pensamiento medular. Luego, abordaré los temas ya indicados en base a una serie de acápites numerados, y conjuntamente con ello se intentará relacionarlos, en su caso, con ciertos postulados de filósofos modernos y contemporáneos.

Por último, se analizará de un modo sucinto un pensamiento determinado expresado por Pascal en Les Pensées, el cual influenció la obra del filósofo político Michael Walzer denominada “Las Esferas de la Justicia” (1983), particularmente en su noción de “igualdad compleja”.

Sažetak: Globalizacija se pokazala kao jak izazov suverenitetu, ali država još uvek ne daje svoje ingerencije u oblasti kontrole imigracije. Ovaj esej ima za cilj predstavljanje prvih radova političkih teoretičara u oblasti etike imigracije – ponajviše Majka Volcera, koji govori u prilog kolektivnog prava država da kontrolišu ulazak ljudi, i Džozefa Karensa, koji brani princip otvorenih granica. Čak i bez dovođenja u pitanje generalnog prava države na kontrolu imi-gracije može se govoriti o moralnoj obavezi primanja određenih kategorija nedržavljana koju bi trebalo da ispune liberalno-demokratske države. S druge strane, nijedna strategija kontrole članstva ne može biti konzistentna sa centralnim liberalnim principima po kojima svaka osoba ima jednaku moralnu vrednost. Na kraju, u eseju se razmatra potencijalni svet migracija bez granica i neke od pozitivnih implikacija jednog takvog scenarija.
Ključne reči: imigracija, sloboda kretanja, Volcer, Karens, zatvorne i otvorene granice

The article examines the recent debate on a genuinely realist perspective in political philosophy and argues that the core idea of realism is a certain type of ethical theory. In spite of the notorious polemic against “moralism” in politics that is characteristic of realist thinkers since Machiavelli, political realism as put forth in the current debate is not to be understood as a strictly fact-oriented perspective on politics, but rather as a perspective that itself is founded on a theory of political
ethics. This peculiarly realist theory of political ethics can be characterized by its focus on the theoretical importance of political application problems, by a genuine priority principle underlying its understanding of political ethics, by its distinctive
understanding of the concept of legitimacy and, finally, by its claim that any form of ethics, as far as it is concerned with political questions, is necessarily ambivalent in character.

Terrorist violence is often condemned for targeting innocents or non-combatants. There are two objections to this line of argument. First, one may doubt that terrorism is necessarily directed against innocents or non-combatants. However, I will focus on the second objection, according to which there may be exceptions from the prohibition against killing the innocent. In my article I will elaborate whether lethal terrorism against innocents can be justified in a supreme emergency. Starting from a critique of Michael Walzer’s account of supreme emergency, I will argue that the supreme emergency exemption justifies the resort to terrorism against innocents to avert moral disasters such as genocide and ethnic cleansing, provided that the criteria of last resort, proportionality and public declaration are satisfied.

Mevcut çalışma, ilkçağdan günümüze, kaynağını felsefe, din, ahlâk, kültür ve hukuk gibi birçok etkenden alan “haklı savaş” kavramının tarihsel kökenlerini, “haklı savaş”kavramının Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) ile uğradığı dönüşümü, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) ve Immauel Kant’ın (1724-1804) düşünceleri ekseninde şekillenen “ebedî barış” fikrinin “haklı savaş” kavramıyla olan ilişkisini ve devletin “devamlılık” ilkesinin bu düşünceler etrafındaki yerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çağdaş “haklı savaş” kuramcılarından olan Michael Walzer’ın (1935-) görüşleriyle, konuya çağdaş bir boyut kazandırmak da mevcut bildirinin ikincil amacını teşkil etmektedir.

Devletlerin savaşlara karşı tutumunu belirleyen “haklı savaş”ın gerekçelerinden biri olan “barışa ulaşma isteği” ve bu isteğe eklemlenen “ebedî barış” fikri, devletin “devamlılık” ilkesiyle birlikte tarih boyunca egemenler tarafından savaşın meşruiyetini sağlamak için kullanılmıştır. Ancak tüm bu gerekçeler birçok savaşın sebebi olarak gözükse de “haklı savaş” kavramı tarih boyunca hem suistimallerden kurtulamamış hem de kendisine çizilen farklı hukukî sınırlar nedeniyle kalıcı bir tanıma kavuşamamıştır. Carl Schmitt’in üzerinde durduğu, [Politische Theologie, (Siyasî İlahiyat), 1922] Giorgio Agamben’in ise yeniden yorumladığı [State of Exception (İstisna Hâli), 2003] “istisna hâli” kavramıyla bu ilişkiyi kavramaya çalışmak da yerinde olacaktır.

Samuel Bowles y Herbert Gintis, economistas estadounidenses, realizan en La instrucción escolar en la América capitalista (1985) una contribución muy  interesantes a la sociología de la educación. Parten del estudio del fracaso de las reformas de la educación secundaria estadounidense, inspiradas por una matriz liberal, teniendo como objetivo, establecer una educación con fuerte énfasis en valores democráticos y liberadora de la personalidad individual. La desigualdad económica y los niveles educativos de desarrollo alcanzados por los estudiantes van a venir marcados en primera instancia por el mercado, la propiedad y las relaciones de poder que definen el sistema capitalista. Lo que hacen las instituciones de enseñanza es estructurarse de acuerdo a unas modalidades curriculares y a unas estrategias organizativas destinadas a jerarquizar y a distribuir meritocráticamente a cada persona en el interior de la red de ocupación, que también está diseñado jerárquicamente.
Se analizará críticamente, pues, la teoría de la correspondencia de Bowles y Gintis, centrándome en el planteamiento de Michael Walzer, en especial a sus conceptos de bien social, igualdad compleja y tiranía para demostrar que la escuela no tiene como propósito reproducir a los grupos sociales con fines jerárquicos, pues no tendría sentido intentar analizar los principios distributivos internos del bien social educación.

Co-Authored with Grit Straßenberger.

Generally, Mouffe’s political theory is labeled as a radical democratic concept. We are going to challenge this common view by showing that Mouffe derives her theory from the tradition of a conflictive liberalism. Coping with the political problems of the present, she re-narrates the history of democracy in order to generate a normative foundation of society that likewise acknowledges its own contingency. In sharp contrast to the commonalities of enlightenment liberalism and socialism, the acceptance of contingency makes clear that liberal democracy must always be both conceptually incomplete and nevertheless actively defended. Re-narrating democracy, Mouffe therefore encourages a liberal connection of pluralism and conflict. Both function as the antibodies to the threats of liberal democracy, debunked by Carl Schmitt. We reconstruct the intellectual references for Mouffe’s conflictive liberalism and finally propose to reconsider the relationship between liberalism and republicanism from this point of view.

- peer reviewed -