Shaveko Nikolai

Contemporary societies are characterized by cultural, ethnic and religious diversity, which creates the need to find fair principles for resolving differences arising on the basis of such diversity. The purpose of the article is to consider the validity of the concept of multiculturalism as a solution to the problem of ethno-cultural justice. The article criticizes the theses expressed in the scientific literature in defense of multiculturalism. In particular, it is demonstrated that: 1) tolerance inevitably has its limits set by a single political culture for all, 2) the value of cultural diversity (in particular, its importance for personal development) should not be exaggerated, while it should be correlated with other values; 3) it is not cultures that should be considered equal, but their bearers; and since the rights of groups are derived from the rights of individuals, it is impossible to postulate the inalienable right of each culture to preserve and develop. The specifics of the activation of ethnic and regional identities are analyzed, as well as alternative ways of multiculturalism to prevent interethnic and intercultural conflicts. At the same time, a number of argumentas are given, according to which the preservation and development of cultural diversity should still be ensured (the significance of these arguments is always conditional): 1) the relative value of cultural diversity as such; 2) the role of the protection of minority and indigenous peoples, immigrants and other communities with a unique culture in ensuring the political and social stability of states, peace and security; 3) the preservation of historical and cultural heritage; 4) correction of historical injustices (at the same time, the conditions under which affirmative action can be justified are called). A policy that takes into account these arguments is justified by the author as a healthy “soft” variant of multiculturalism.

The Kantian tradition is one of the most influential in moral, legal and political philosophy, and in the theory of justice. This article aims to analyze the problem of the abstractness of the «categorical imperative», as well as those aspects, in which this problem was actualized in contemporary philosophy. To this purpose, the author analyzes the concept of justice of such scholars of XX century as R. Stammler, P. Novgorodtsev, G. Radbruch, J. Rawls, J. Habermas, and others. In the course of the study, historical-genetic, historical-comparative, formal-legal, systemic, and other methods are used. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that the problem of the abstractness of the “categorical imperative” can be explicated in seven different aspects, forming various scientific discourses: 1) in the idea of natural law with changing content; 2) in the nature of the social ideal, which can only be postulated, but not justified; 3) in the discursive, and therefore contextual nature of legal norms arising from the postulated social ideal; 4) in admitting, in exceptional cases, intentionally unfair norms, taking into account the real possibility of putting the ideal into practice; 5) the possibility of understanding the legal ideal as the egoism of individuals under the condition of reciprocity; 6) the need to take into account the equality of opportunities; 7) in the matter of the fairness of the election and domination of those or other legal constructions, determined by the goals of social institutions. In the end, the author draws conclusions regarding the relevance and the results of the scientific discourses named by him.

This interview explores the extent to which Kant’s philosophy, which postulates certain moral principles categorically, has influenced the contemporary theory of justice. Many academics believe such principles to be relative and emphasise that justice lies beyond the remit of science. Otfried Höffe is convinced that categorical legal principles remain a valid subject for an academic discussion. In his works, he often appeals to Kantian philosophy. In the interview, Prof. Dr. О. Höffe refers to such famous German Neo-Kantian philosophers of law as R. Stammler and G. Radbruch. He also mentions J. Rawls and J. Habermas — self-confessed adherents of the Kantian tradition in moral philosophy. Prof. Dr. Höffe expounds his views on the problems discussed by these authors. He dismisses G. W. F. Hegel’s criticism of Kant and denies the dependence of the fundamental principles of justice on the Zeitgeist and the opinions of the masses. The interviewee calls freedom the supreme human value, advocates the idea of a democratic constitutional state (he considers the principles of a social state as a mission of the state rather than a subjective right of citizens), and argues that dictatorship and tyranny deserve resistance. Prof. Dr. Höffe gives detailed definitions of the notions of transcendental exchange, categorical legal principles, enlightened liberal democracy, and a world republic. This interview will supplement the body of Prof. Dr. Höffe’s works that have already been translated into Russian.