M Perić

At first glance, the imperative to treat all human beings according to equal norms and principles appears indisputable, with any deviation seen as an ethical transgression. The rational perspective dictates a uniform consideration of all individuals unless differential treatment is warranted by valid reasons, avoiding harm. Deviations from equal treatment are typically viewed as exceptions, and ethical frameworks acknowledging groundless differences between individuals seem unjustified. This poses a significant challenge to defending nationalism, which presupposes prioritizing compatriots over others. This dilemma engenders two opposing camps: universalism and particularism. Universalism argues that only general facts about others should determine one's duties towards them, while particularism contends that interpersonal relations play a crucial role in defining rights and duties. From the universalist standpoint, particularism is suspect, as it appears non-impartial and favors specific groups. In response, a particularist might argue that the virtue of impartiality is context-dependent, requiring unbiased behavior in specific situations. Thus, the particularist does not view universalism as indispensable to impartiality (Miller, 1997, 53-4). This abstract explores the ethical complexities surrounding these perspectives, particularly when faced with the nuances of nationalism.

Nous sommes en train de franchir un seuil dont, par ailleurs, nous ignorons l’issue. Une technologie de conversation inspirée du mouvement chilien Mandrágora des années 1930 et des qualités magiques de la plante du même nom mobilise les pratiques artistiques pour l’entrevoir. La Mandrágora Constituyente a été conçue autour d’au moins deux idées : la dissidence ne nie pas la conversation, mais la favorise ; la réalité se constitue dans sa description, de sorte que les faits ne sont pas indépendants de la manière dont ils sont lus.