Der Grund der Kritik : zum Begriff der Menschenwürde in sozialen Rechtfertigungsordnungen

Ernst Bloch pointed out in a particularly emphatic way that the concept of human dignity featured centrally in historical struggles against different forms of unjustified rule, i.e. domination – to which one must add that it continues to do so to the present day. The “upright gait,” putting an end to humiliation and insult: this is the most powerful demand, in both political and rhetorical terms, that a “human rights-based” claim expresses. It marks the emergence of a radical, context-transcending reference point immanent to social conflicts which raises fundamental questions concerning the customary opposition between immanent and transcendent criticism. For within the idiom of demanding respect for human dignity, a right is invoked “here and now,” in a particular, context-specific form, which at its core is owed to every human being as a person. Thus Bloch is in one respect correct when he asserts that human rights are not a natural “birthright” but must be achieved through struggle; but in another respect this struggle can develop its social power only if it has a firm and in a certain sense “absolute” normative anchor. Properly understood, it becomes apparent that these social conflicts always affect “two worlds”: the social reality, on the one hand, which is criticized in part or radically in the light of an ideal normative dimension, on the other. For those who engage in this criticism there is no doubt that the normative dimension is no less real than the reality to which they refuse to resign themselves. Those who critically transcend reality always also live elsewhere

Forst on Reciprocity of Reasons: a Critique

According to Rainer Forst, (i) moral and political claims must meet a requirement of reciprocal and general acceptability (RGA) while (ii) we are under a duty in engaged discursive practice to justify such claims to others, or be able to do so, on grounds that meet RGA. The paper critically engages this view. I argue that Forst builds a key component of RGA, i.e., reciprocity of reasons, on an idea of the reasonable that undermines both (i) and (ii): if RGA builds on this idea, RGA is viciously regressive and a duty of justification to meet RGA fails to be agent transparent. This negative result opens the door for alternative conceptions of reciprocity and generality. I then suggest that a more promising conception of reciprocity and generality needs to build on an idea of the reasonable that helps to reconcile the emancipatory or protective aspirations of reciprocal and general justification with its egalitarian commitments. But this requires to downgrade RGA in the order of justification and to determine on prior, substantive grounds what level of discursive influence in reciprocal and general justification relevant agents ought to have

Transnational justice and democracy

The title I have chosen seems to signal a tension, even a contradiction, in a number of respects. Democracy appears to be a form of political organisation and government in which, through general and public participatory procedures, a sufficiently legitimate political will is formed which acquires the force of law. Justice, by contrast, appears to be a value external to this context which is not so much linked to procedures of “input” or “throughput” legitimation but is understood instead as an output- or outcome-oriented concept. At times, justice is even understood as an otherworldly idea which, when transported into the Platonic cave, merely causes trouble and ends up as an undemocratic elite project. In methodological terms, too, this difference is sometimes signalled in terms of a contrast between a form of “worldly” political thought and “abstract” and otherworldly philosophical reflection on justice. In my view, we are bound to talk past the issues to be discussed under the heading “transnational justice and democracy” unless we first root out false dichotomies such as the ones mentioned. My thesis will be that justice must be “secularised” or “grounded” both with regard to how we understand it and to its application to relations beyond the state

Die Ambivalenz der Toleranz : vom schwierigen Balanceakt zwischen Gleichheit und Differenz

Immer wieder sieht man sich – einer Zeitreise gleich – heutzutage rückversetzt in die trüben Zeiten religiöser Konfrontationen, denkt man an die Diskussionen über Pläne zum Bau von Moscheen, die Regensburger Rede des Papstes, Karikaturen in dänischen Zeitungen oder Kopftücher von Lehrerinnen. Und so ist es ganz folgerichtig, dass der ehrwürdige Begriff der Toleranz allerorten bemüht wird, um konfliktentschärfend zu wirken. Gleichwohl fällt auf, dass häufig jede der streitenden Parteien ihn für sich reklamiert. Was also heißt »Toleranz« genau

Os limites da tolerância

Este artigo apresenta os elementos constitutivos do conceito de tolerância e discute duas concepções diferentes do termo, como permissão e como respeito moral, que expressam modos diversos de demarcar os limites da tolerância. A tolerância é apresentada como um conceito que, para ganhar algum conteúdo, depende normativamente de um direito à justificação baseado na idéia de um uso público da razão segundo o qual as práticas e as instituições político-jurídicas que determinam a vida social dos cidadãos devem ser justificáveis à luz de normas que eles não podem recíproca e genericamente rejeitar.The article presents the constitutive elements of the concept of toleration and discusses two different conceptions of toleration, as permission and as moral respect, which express different ways of demarcating the limits of the toleration. Toleration is presented as a concept that to gain a certain contend and substance is a normatively dependent concept, one that is in need of a right to justification based on the ideia of a public use of reason according to every practices and legal-political institutions that determine the social life of the citizens must to be justifiable by norms that they can not reciprocally and generically reject

Zum Begriff eines Rechtfertigungsnarrativs

Den Menschen als vernunftbegabtes Wesen, als animal rationale, zu begreifen heißt, ihn als rechtfertigendes Wesen anzusehen. Die Vernunft ist die Fähigkeit, sich anhand rechtfertigender Gründe in der Welt zu orientieren. Denn „ratio, raison, reason bedeutet“, wie Tugendhat hervorhebt, „ebenso sehr ‚Grund‘ wie ‚Vernunft‘. Das Vermögen der Vernunft ist die Fähigkeit, für seine Meinungen und für seine Handlungen Rede und Antwort stehen zu können; lat. rationem reddere, griech. logon didonai.“ Dieses Rede-und-Antwort-Stehen ist eine soziale Praxis kulturell und historisch situierter Wesen, die einerseits frei sind, ihre Gründe zu wählen und zu prüfen, andererseits aber daran gebunden, welche Gründe ihnen zur Verfügung stehen und welche als gut oder rechtfertigend gelten. Der Raum der Gründe ist ein Raum der Rechtfertigungen, die nicht nur Einzelhandlungen, sondern auch komplexe Handlungsordnungen, also soziale Verhältnisse und politische Institutionen, legitimieren. Menschen sind aber auch erzählende Wesen. Der Raum der Gründe, in dem sie sich orientieren, ist kein nackter Raum einzelner Sätze oder gar Normen, sondern bevölkert von Narrativen

Innenansichten: über die Dynamik normativer Konflikte : Jürgen Habermas’ Philosophie im Lichte eines aktuellen Forschungsprogramms

Das Werk von Jürgen Habermas ragt einsam aus der Theorielandschaft unserer Tage heraus, denn ihm ist es auf einzigartige Weise gelungen, eine einheitliche Theorie in der Vielzahl der disziplinären Stimmen der Philosophie und der Sozial- und Rechtswissenschaften zu schaffen: die Theorie des Diskurses. Sie hat auf all diesen Gebieten innovativ und paradigmenbildend gewirkt, was sich nicht zuletzt daran zeigt, wie stark seine Erkenntnisse auf neuere Forschungsprogramme wirken. Ein Beispiel hierfür ist der Frankfurter Exzellenzcluster »Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen«, der seit Herbst 2007 von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft gefördert wird und unter anderem neun neue Professuren an der Goethe-Universität geschaffen und besetzt hat. In mehr als 30 Forschungsprojekten arbeiten Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler zu unterschiedlichen Fragestellungen der Veränderung gesellschaftlicher Ordnungen

Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen : zur Idee eines interdisziplinären Forschungsprogramms

Ein geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliches Forschungsprogramm betritt mit der These, dass wir in einer Zeit tiefgreifender sozialer Veränderungen leben, kein Neuland. Ein thematischer Fokus auf die Frage der Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen mit Bezug auf die entsprechenden Verschiebungen, Umbrüche und Konflikte in verschiedenen Gesellschaften und auf transnationaler Ebene bringt dagegen etwas Neues und Wichtiges ans Licht. Das ist jedenfalls unsere Überzeugung

Identifying genes of gene regulatory networks using formal concept analysis

In order to understand the behavior of a gene regulatory network, it is essential to know the genes that belong to it. Identifying the correct members (e.g. in order to build a model) is a difficult task even for small subnetworks. Usually only few members of a network are known and one needs to guess the missing members based on experience or informed speculation. It is beneficial if one can additionally rely on experimental data to support this guess. In this work we present a new method based on formal concept analysis to detect unknown members of a gene regulatory network from gene expression time series data. We show that formal concept analysis is able to find a list of candidate genes for inclusion into a partially known basic network. This list can then be reduced by a statistical analysis so that the resulting genes interact strongly with the basic network and therefore should be included when modeling the network. The method has been applied to the DNA repair system of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. In this application our method produces comparable results to an already existing method of component selection while it is applicable to a broader range of problems

Justice, Democracy and the Right to Justification

This volume introduces Rainer Forst's influential moral account of the basic right of justification that humans owe to one another as rational beings