Vojin Rakic

U ovom radu posveticemo paznju pitanju pravde, posebno u medjunarodnim odnosima. U tom kontekstu, dacemo kratak pregled postojecih teorija medjunarodne pravde. Potom cemo se okrenuti pitanju sta pravda zapravo jeste. Pokazacemo ubedljivost tvrdnje da je ona zasnovana na ideji slobode. Nasu poziciju pokusacemo da branimo uz pomoc Kantove i Dojlove argumentacije. Zakljucicemo da postoje ubedljivi argumenti u prilog tezi da je nas istorijski razvoj obelezen postupnom ekspanzijom slobode i pravde. Povrh toga, imamo snazne razloge da tezimo liberalnom internacionalizmu zasnovanom na ideji postepenog priblizavanja covecanstva odredjenom obliku svetske drzave, a koji mo_e biti najbolji garant pravde u medjunarodnim odnosima.

It will be argued that the values of liberalism and peace are essential elements of the moral identity of Europe, as well as universal moral values. They will be contrasted to Europe’s history of warfare. An essential point of reference for the moral identity of Europe is going to be sought in Kant’s notions of the “ethical commonwealth” and “perpetual peace”. The link between this identity and cosmopolitanism will be established. In addition to that, the moral superiority of cosmopolitanism vis-à-vis its alternatives will be asserted on the basis of the concept of the “normative will”. This concept is going to be situated in the framework of four paradigmatic formulations of cosmopolitanism. The primary conclusion will be that a pre-condition for the preservation of the moral identity of Europe is a redefinition of the concept of “being European” in the direction of increasing cultural inclusiveness. In other words, Europe is to reformulate its cultural underpinnings in order to preserve its moral identity

I discuss the argument of Persson and Savulescu that moral enhancement ought to accompany cognitive enhancement, as well as briefly addressing critiques of this argument, notably by John Harris. I argue that Harris, who believes that cognitive enhancement is largely sufficient for making us behave more morally, might be disposing too easily of the great quandary of our moral existence: the gap between what we do and what we believe is morally right to do. In that regard, Persson and Savulescu's position has the potential to offer more. However, I question Persson and Savulescu's proposal of compulsory moral enhancement, proposing the alternative of voluntary moral enhancement.

The question will be raised whether oxytocin can serve as an effective moral enhancer. Different types of moral enhancement will be addressed, one of them being compulsory moral enhancement. It will be argued that oxytocin cannot serve as an effective moral enhancer if its use is being made compulsory. Hence, compulsory administration of oxytocin does not result in genuine moral enhancement. In order to demonstrate this, a stipulation of the main potentially beneficial outcomes of using oxytocin as a moral enhancer will be offered, as well as a discussion of objections to the notion that oxytocin can be an effective moral enhancer. It will be concluded that mandatory administration of oxytocin is ineffective because of a combination of two reasons: mandatory administration of oxytocin renders moral reflection practically superfluous; without moral reflection the beneficial outcomes of the use of oxytocin do not outweigh its drawbacks to the degree that we could speak of effective moral enhancement.