Peter Koller

Rawls's difference principle, according to which social and economic inequalities are justified only if they achieve the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, has been often interpreted as a maximin-principle, in order to make it fit into the frame of welfare economics. Under this interpretation, however, the difference principle is subject to such grave objections, that it can hardly serve as a principle of justice. In order to avoid these difficulties, modifications of the difference principle have been proposed by Sen and Rae. But these proposals don't lead to acceptable resolutions either. As an alternative, a new interpretation of Rawls's difference principle is proposed, which brings out the reasonable core of this principle and, at the same time, repairs the shortcomings of its earlier interpretations.

Ausgehend von einer minimalen, mit unterschiedlichen moralisehen Vorstellungen verträglichen Bestimmung des Begriffs der Moral, die im wesentlichen an eine Explikation von Stephan Körner anknüpft, wird die Möglichkeit einer rationalen, intersubjektiv konsensfähigen Begründung moralischer Standards erörtert. Dabei werden zwei verschiedenartige Konzeptionen einer solchen Begründung unterschieden, nämlich die individualistische und die universalistische Konzeption, denen jeweils verschiedene Konzepte praktischer Rationalität zugrundeliegen: das Konzept individueller und das Konzept universeller praktischer Rationalität. Während die individualistische Konzeption eine Begründung der Moral ausschließlich auf der Grundlage der realen individuellen Interessen der Menschen zu liefern versucht, gehen die Spielarten der universalistischen Konzeption stets von der idealisierten Vorstellung eines unparteilichen Standpunkts aus, von dem aus alle die gleichen Gründe haben, bestimmte Standards der Moral anzunehmen. Eine eingehende Diskussion des rational-individualistischen Modells führt zum Ergebnis, daß das Konzept individueller praktischer Rationalität für sich allein keine tragfähige Grundlage einer annehmbaren Vorstellung von Moral darstellt und daß eine angemessene Konzeption der rationalen Moralbegründung jedenfalls bestimmter Annahmen universeller Art bedarf.

In this critical comment on Ernst Tugendhat's paper I dispute his view in two respects: the first refers to the concept, the second to the justification of human rights. As far as the concept of human rights is concerned, I argue that Tugendhat fails to notice that there are different kinds of human rights which are to be distinguished carefully. This conceptual failure prevents him from seeing that different human rights are justified by different reasons. While universal human rights can be justified by the principle of universalization, community rights are based on the demands of social justice.

The relationship between human rights and civil rights is twofold: on the one hand these rights can be viewed as forming a unity, and on the other there is a significant difference between them. The unity of human and civil rights is based upon the widely shared view that both are fundamental and universal rights, inherent to all human beings without regard to any contingent factors. This unity, however, is weakened by the division of our world into a plurality of separate and independent states. It thus becomes plausible to assume that the citizens of a particular state are endowed with certain fundamental rights towards each other and their state, which are stronger than the rights existing between human beings in general. In this respect, human and civil rights are significantly different.However positive law may draw the line between human and civil rights, any such delimitation needs moral justification and is questionable from an ethical point of view. Moreover, there is reason to doubt that traditional approaches are still suitable in a world in which different societies are merging in their economic, political and ecological affairs. This article considers the ethical foundation for human and civil rights in an attempt to determine whether the traditional delimitation between them is in need of revision. An argument is made that human and civil rights differ in their moral justification. While human rights can be justified by the basic principle of a universal morality, namely the principle of universalization, civil rights are based on our conception of social justice. The justification for civil rights, however, proceeds from the assumption that any given society is a self-sufficient and independent community. Since this assumption no longer corresponds to the conditions of our modern world, the article concludes that a new understanding of basic rights is imperative

Since antiquity, prudence has been esteemed as an important guideline of reasonable human conduct and even as a cardinal virtue. There are, however, controversies about what it means and demands. In ancient and medieval philosophy, prudence was understood in a very wide sense as the comprehensive capacity to act in a well-considered way on the basis of best reasons, including moral reasons. By contrast, in modern philosophy it has often been interpreted in a much narrower sense as individuals' pursuit of their own long-term good or rational self-interest, which does not necessarily rely on moral reasons and may lead to results contradictory to morality. On the assumption of this second, narrow concept, this paper aims at clarifying the role of prudence in the realm of practical reason and its relationship to morality. Any human action faces three questions regarding its reasonableness: We can ask whether or not it is expedient, i.e. suitable for achieving the pursued goals, whatever these goals may be, prudent, i.e. compatible with the actor's well-considered self-interest, and moral, i.e. acceptable from the viewpoint of moral impartiality and universality. Accordingly, one can differentiate between three levels of practical reason that include different guidelines for human conduct, but must be combined in order to come to a final judgement: expediency, prudence, and morality. These levels of practical reason differ, on the one hand, in the way they make use of individual preferences and, on the other, in the initial state of affairs to which they refer. Since the considerations at the different levels may result in contradicting directions, there must be a rule for combining them in a coherent end-result: this rule consists in a strict ranking order according to which morality overrules prudence that itself has priority over expediency. This conception of practical reason raises a number of questions as to the relationships between prudence and morality. The most frequently asked question in this context, namely the question of why one should be moral, is not discussed in the paper. Instead, it focuses on the internal connections between morality and prudence. One connection concerns the impact of morality on prudence. Morality may enter into prudential considerations in two ways: through internalized moral traits that may become part of a person's self-interest and through moral preferences that may restrict conflicting prudential motives to a certain degree. But there is also a connection between prudence and morality. On the assumption that a reasonable morality must aim at achieving a social order which is to the benefit of all people concerned from an impartial point of view , it is obvious that moral reasoning cannot do without prudential considerations

Social power has many facets. This paper aims to illuminate some of these. First of all, it considers the general conceptual framework in which the concept of power is embedded. The author then elaborates on an analysis of the elementary concept of social power resulting in a proposal how to define power. Furthermore, the article deals with complex networks of power relations, namely constellations and structures of power. Another section focuses on some special aspects of the dynamics of power structures. Finally, the author discusses the problem of legitimation of power.

Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice is, besides Rawls’s theory, one of the most widely discussed and intellectually most attractive conceptions within the field of contemporary political philosophy. Nozick’s theory uses Locke's conception of the state of nature and of natural rights, and tries, starting from this point of view, to deliver a comprehensive systematisation of libertarian political ideals. This essay deals mainly with Nozick’s conception of property rights. The argument is put forward that the concept of exclusive and unrestrictable ownership of which Nozick makes use, doesn’t find any acceptable justification on the basis of his theory.

This paper deals with the question of how norms are to be conceived of in order to understand their role as guidelines for human action within various normative orders, particularly in the context of law on the one hand and conventional morality on the other. After some brief remarks on the history of the term “norm,” the author outlines the most significant general features of actually existing social norms, including legal and conventional norms, from which he arrives at two basic requirements on an appropriate conception of such norms: the actuality and the normativity requirements. On this basis, he enters into a critical discussion of Kelsen's highly influential view of norms, arguing that this view is doomed to failure. In the last part of the paper, the author scrutinizes the more promising “practice theory of norms” by H.L.A. Hart, which, in his view, also suffers from some shortcomings, but may be modified in a way that leads to a conception of social norms providing us with a plausible explication of their actual existence and their normative force

Einer der interessantesten der vielfältigen Versuche, die Ethik auf ein festes Fundament zu stellen, ist die Konzeption intrinsischer Werte, die Vorstellung, daß eine objektive Begründung der Ethik vermöge einer intuitiven Erkenntnis des inneren Werts der Dinge möglich sei. Doch diese Vorstellung, die in neuerer Zeit vor allem von Franz Brentano und G.E. Moore vertreten wurde und die heute in Roderick Chisholm ihren prominentesten Anhänger hat, ist nicht zielführend. Dies zu demonstrieren, ist das Ziel des vorliegenden Aufsatzes. Zu diesem Zweck wird zunächst die Konzeption intrinsischer Werte anhand der Lehren Brentanos und Moores in aller Kürze skizziert. Daran anschließend wird erstens versucht, die Sinnhaftigkeit des Konzepts intrinsischer Werte überhaupt in Frage zu stellen. Darüber hinaus aber wird weiters gezeigt, daß selbst dann, wenn man intrinsische Werte entsprechend der von Brentano und Moore vertretenen Auffassung als gegeben annimmt, diese Annahme keine ausreichende Grundlage für eine befriedigende ethische Theorie bereitstellt.

This article deals with the conceptual features and the rational justification of moral rights. For this purpose, the author starts with a common classification of rights, i.e., the distinction between rights in rem and rights in personam. He argues that rights of the first kind can be justified by a two‐fold application of the principle of universalizability, while the latter are based on moral rules concerning special social relations, rules which themselves are founded on the principle of universalizability. This distinction, however, does not suffice to cover a further category of rights that play a very important role in social life, namely the rights of community membership, i.e., the particular rights that exist between the members of a social community. These rights cannot be derived from universalizability alone, but, instead, are based on the idea of social justice. This paper provides a short account of the main principles of social justice, and tries to apply them to property and welfare rights.

Der Beitrag verfolgt das Ziel, die Entwicklung der Idee der Gerechtigkeit in der Neuzeit im Kontext des sozialen Wandels zu erhellen. Zu diesem Zweck wird nach einer einleitenden Erörterung des dieser Idee zugrundeliegenden Gerechtigkeitsbegriffs zuerst das Projekt einer vertragstheoretischen Begründung einer gerechten staatlichen Ordnung in der frühen Neuzeit vor dem Hintergrund des Herausbildung des modernen Staates behandelt. Im Anschluss werden die theoretischen Leitideen und gesellschaftlichen Triebkräfte des Kampfes um bürgerliche Freiheit und demokratische Teilhabe beleuchtet, wovon ausgehend dann die Entstehung der heute vorherrschenden Vorstellung von sozialer Gerechtigkeit einer näheren Betrachtung unterzogen wird. Der Beitrag endet mit einigen Bemerkungen über die Gerechtigkeitsprobleme der Gegenwart und die künftigen Herausforderungen im Kampf um Gerechtigkeit.