Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Liberal and Communitarian strategies of human rights justification are investigated in the article as alternative and rooted from different ontological presuppositions. While liberalism stands on the position of “unencumbered subject”, which has priority concerning his aims (as individual or collective imposed), Communitarianism stands on the position of “embodied subject”, which is always included in social and cultural meaningful context of community. Hence Liberalism considers human rights from universal morality prospects of respect toward each person regardless of cultural and social identity, while Communitarianism explains human rights mostly in terms of civil rights and treats patriotic collective solidarity as a condition of respect. The authors raise the question about horizon of understanding human rights, common for liberalism and communitarianism. Specific morals of law, which presuppose priority of rights toward obligations and derive from understanding of different kind of threats in common human being is considered as such horizon.
UK
Питання обґрунтування прав людини є одним з найскладніших для сучасної практичної філософії. Головна проблема полягає в їх претензії на універсальний характер, яка співіснує поряд з історично визначеним контекстом походження цих прав та їх пов’язаністю з партикулярними правовими системами. Права людини, за визначенням, належать усім людям саме як людям, незалежно від їхнього громадянського та правового статусу в тій чи тій державі. Разом з тим ці права (як філософська ідея, а згодом і як юридичне поняття) з’являються у певному місці та у певний час, а саме в Європі та Північно-Американських Штатах у XVII–XVIII сторіччях. Вони увіходять до складу громадянських прав, які по своїй суті є партикулярними і стосуються лише певних правових систем, у рамках яких їх визначають та ґарантують механізми їх реалізації. Така амбівалентність містить у собі дві відмінні можливості розуміння прав людини.
EN
Two different approaches to the problem of social contract represented in modern philosophy are being investigated in this article. First approach based on theory of mutual advantage and rooted from Hobbes philosophy. Second approach based on fundamental moral intuition of equal respect to each person as moral entity and connected with tradition of moral philosophy rooted from Kant. The influence of this tradition was increased after “The Theory of Justice” by Jon Rawls was published. In this work post-metaphysical version of Kantian procedure universalism was developed. From Kantian point of view understanding of social contract as mutual advantage based on extra-moral ground hence it is beyond normative political philosophy and philosophy of law. The author argues that both directions of contractarianism reveal the similarity in using definite type of moral argumentation. The last one is connected with specific morality of law which starts from priority of the rights under obligations. This morality based on ontological understanding of human being as fundamental indefinite, so be able to bear threat.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.