SEEU Review vol. 5 Nr. 2 (pdf) - South East European University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Dr. Ercan Gündoğan suggest, should start with a criticism of this inter-subjectivism and tries to demonstrate that the realist ontology is compatible with the content of socalled “democratic society” in its socialist form. Veil of Ignorance, Reflective Equilibrium, or Method of Avoidance: Rawls extends the “idea of agreement” to the basic structure of society. This difficult task, to him, can be achieved within the “veil of ignorance”. The second difficulty is the assumption of hypothetical and non-historical character of the parties in the original position. Any hypothetical position “cannot bind” and Rawls points to the significance of the original position again (Rawls, 1999, 399-400). The original position is similar to the state of nature in the contract doctrine. It is “a purely hypothetical situation characterized so as to lead to a certain conception of justice”. In this situation, nobody knows his fortune or the place he occupies in the society or his conception of the good. “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance”. The veil is proposed to eliminate the advantages and disadvantages caused by the natural or social contingencies. Thus, the principles of justice would not be outcomes of the particular advantages but the result of “fair agreement or bargain”. Parties are moral individuals who are “similarly situated” and “symmetrically related”. They are rational beings with their own ends and Rawls assumes that they are “capable of a sense of justice”. The original position is “the appropriate status quo” and the resultant agreement is fair (Rawls, 1971, 12). The veil of ignorance looks like the situation in the game theory in which parties voluntarily participate in a game and know only the rules of the game and their rational interests. For the principles of justice to be selected, Rawls states that there must be certain conditions within and through which “commonly shared presumptions” can be incorporated by the initial situation. The contract will reveal the bounds for an acceptance of the principles. The bounds or constraints are provided thanks to “veil of ignorance”, which excludes the particular information and contingencies about persons. In fact, the reverse is true since Rawls thinks that such an exclusion of information and contingencies arrive at a veil of ignorance. “At any time we can enter the original position, so to speak, simply by following a certain procedure, namely, by arguing for principles of justice in accordance with these restrictions” (Rawls, 1971, 19). Original position does not imply historical period from which contract relation begins. It can be created every time and everywhere. 20
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 The principles of justice help us to judge what is unjust and offers a conceptual framework to avoid injustices. Rawls suggests that we must try to avoid the long-lasting problems of philosophy such as problem of truth and the dualism between realism and subjectivism for the status of moral and political values. The alternative can be obtained from the social contract in order “to achieve a practicable conception of objectivity and justification on due reflection”. The solution underlies the peaceful compromise through “public reason”. A political conception of person does not necessarily involve “questions of philosophical psychology or a metaphysical doctrine of the nature of the self”. Conflicting differences between political views can be “moderated” through the “method of avoidance”, so that “social cooperation on the basis of mutual respect can be manifested” (Rawls, 1999, 395). At this point, no need to say that conflict is tried to be resolved with the help of a non-conflict theory, since conflict is out of consideration for the theory of justice and something which public agreement should ignore in advance. The principles provide a condition so that we can make same judgments about the basis of society. For example, Rawls observes that we have certain judgments about certain questions. We are sure that the religious intolerance is unjust (Rawls, 1971, 19). However, this sort of “provisional fixed points”, which any conception of justice is convicted, is not assured in the debatable questions such as correct distributive shares of wealth. Therefore, we must move backward and forward and distinguish weak and shared conditions until we find a proper description of initial situation “that both express reasonable conditions and yields principles which match our considered judgments”. Rawls calls this part of the initial situation “reflective equilibrium”, in which “at last our principles and judgments coincide” and “we know to what principles our judgments conform and the premises of their derivation”. Reflective equilibrium is open to further revisions and in this sense not necessarily stable. In addition, Rawls notices that the initial situation is open to further interpretation. A conception of justice is not based upon the self-evident premises and the justification of the principles of justice is provided by the agreement in the original situation of equality. Justification of the principles originates from the agreement and the justification of a conception of justice is “matter of the mutual support of many considerations, of everything fitting together into one coherent view” (Rawls, 1971, 20-1). 21
Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSITETI I EVROPËS JUGLINDORE
Page 3: Contents Foreword by the Editor in
Page 6: UEJL për këshillat e tij në koh
Page 9 and 10: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 J
Page 13 and 14: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 f
Page 17 and 18: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 c
Page 19: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 j
Page 23 and 24: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 a
Page 25 and 26: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 1
Page 27 and 28: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 c
Page 29 and 30: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 t
Page 31 and 32: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 e
Page 33 and 34: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 R
Page 35 and 36: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 T
Page 37 and 38: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 n
Page 39 and 40: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 a
Page 41 and 42: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 A
Page 43 and 44: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 w
Page 45 and 46: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 T
Page 47 and 48: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 i
Page 49 and 50: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 M
Page 51 and 52: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 G
Page 53 and 54: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009
Page 55 and 56: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 L
Page 57 and 58: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 m
Page 59 and 60: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 L
Page 61 and 62: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 t
Page 63 and 64: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 o
Page 65 and 66: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 g
Page 67 and 68: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 1
Page 69 and 70: SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 A
Page 71 and 72:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009
Page 73 and 74:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 a
Page 75 and 76:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 L
Page 77 and 78:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 H
Page 79 and 80:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 T
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 S
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 h
Page 89 and 90:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 1
Page 91 and 92:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 H
Page 93 and 94:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 s
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 m
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 P
Page 103 and 104:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 I
Page 105 and 106:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 e
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 C
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 D
Page 115 and 116:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 g
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 a
Page 121 and 122:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 d
Page 123 and 124:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 R
Page 125 and 126:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 S
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 W
Page 131 and 132:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 M
Page 133 and 134:
SEEU Review Volume 5, No. 2, 2009 I
Page 135 and 136:
Page 138 and 139:
138 Reviewers: Benjamin Keatinge Dr
Page 140 and 141:
Iranda Bajrami, MA kanë qenë të
Page 142 and 143:
Iranda Bajrami, MA a state of c
Page 144 and 145:
Iranda Bajrami, MA to read and use
Page 146 and 147:
Iranda Bajrami, MA Classrooms were
Page 148 and 149:
Iranda Bajrami, MA the characterist
Page 150 and 151:
Iranda Bajrami, MA Not all the t
Page 152 and 153:
Iranda Bajrami, MA reinforce studen
Page 154 and 155:
Iranda Bajrami, MA References 1. Am
Page 156 and 157:
Iranda Bajrami, MA Appendix A Facto
Page 158 and 159:
Iranda Bajrami, MA Appendix B Obser
Page 160 and 161:
Iranda Bajrami, MA 22. Classroom en
Page 162 and 163:
Iranda Bajrami, MA Appendix C Stude
Page 164 and 165:
Iranda Bajrami, MA 9. 10. 11. 12. 1
Page 166 and 167:
Iranda Bajrami, MA Appendix D Teach
Page 168 and 169:
Iranda Bajrami, MA 18. 19. 20. 21.
Page 170 and 171:
Iranda Bajrami, MA Consistent with
Page 172 and 173:
172 Reviewers: Prof. Dr. Kadri Sule
Page 174 and 175:
Mentor Hamiti, Visar Shehu and Agni
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
194 Reviewers: Prof. Dr. Robert Sch
Page 196 and 197:
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gezim Xhaferi and
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
212 Reviewers: Prof. Dr. Selim Jusu
Page 214 and 215:
Fatmir Faiku, Haxhere Faiku, Murtez
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
show all

SEEU Review vol. 5 Nr. 2 (pdf) - South East European University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?