세계시민주의적 규범성의 패러다임에 대한 고찰-홉스적 패러다임과 칸트적 패러다임을 중심으로
An Examination of the Paradigms of Cosmopolitan Normativity
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The aim of this paper is to analyze the two paradigms of cosmopolitan normativity, Hobbesian one and Kantian one, by a method of comparative study. Hobbesian paradigm is summarized as the ‘constraint of self-interest for the maximization of self-interest’, and Kantian one is summarized as the ‘rational categorical imperative independent of self-interest’. In short,the former is an attempt to relate the ethical and political normativity to our natural self-interest, and the latter is an attempt to justify it as a part of the pure practical rationality independent of self-interest. But I advocate that Kantian ‘Homo moralis’ and Hobbesian ‘Homo economicus’should reconcile themselves on the political stage for the sake of the realization of global peace because all moral ‘shoulds’ could prove its effectiveness only if they are ‘good’ and ‘right’ at the same time for us. This implies that these two paradigms of normativity could be complementary to each other by filling their own roles within their own spheres without coming into antagonism with each other in one and the same sphere.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze the two paradigms of cosmopolitan normativity, Hobbesian one and Kantian one, by a method of comparative study. Hobbesian paradigm is summarized as the ‘constraint of self-interest for the maximization of self-interest’, and Kantian one is summarized as the ‘rational categorical imperative independent of self-interest’. In short,the former is an attempt to relate the ethical and political normativity to our natural self-interest, and the latter is an attempt to justify it as a part of the pure practical rationality independent of self-interest. But I advocate that Kantian ‘Homo moralis’ and Hobbesian ‘Homo economicus’should reconcile themselves on the political stage for the sake of the realization of global peace because all moral ‘shoulds’ could prove its effectiveness only if they are ‘good’ and ‘right’ at the same time for us. This implies that these two paradigms of normativity could be complementary to each other by filling their own roles within their own spheres without coming into antagonism with each other in one and the same sphere.
참고문헌 (31)
- 박은정, "왜 법의 지배인가" (2010), 돌베개
- Bauman, Zygmund, "유동하는 공포" (2009), 산책자
- Bauman, Zygmund, "모두스 비벤디: 유동하는 세계의 지옥과 유토피아" (2010), 후마니타스
- 이상훈, "타자의 권리" (2008), 철학과현실사
- Butler, Judith, "누가 민족국가를 노래하는가" (2008), 산책자
- Cox, Robert, "새천년에 즈음하여 시민 사회를 생각한다 ― 대안적 세계 질서의 전망, In 다수 문명에 대한 사유 외", pp.39~92 (2005), 책세상
- Dahl, Robert, "정치적 평등에 관하여" (2010), 후마니타스
- 조한승, "제국에서 공동체로: 국제관계의 새로운 접근" (2007), 매봉
- Gauthier, David, "합의도덕론" (1993), 철학과현실사
- 김종기, "다시 읽는 칸트의 영구평화론" (2007), 백산서당
- Hobbes, Thomas, "리바이어던: 교회국가 및 시민국가의 재료와 형태 및 권력 1" (2008), 나남
- Hobbes, Thomas, "리바이어던 : 교회국가 및 시민국가의 재료와 형태 및 권력 2" (2008), 나남
- Höffe, Otfried, "세계 공화국, In 윤리학사전", pp.241~243 (1998), 예경
- Höffe, Otfried, "정의: 인류의 가장 소중한 유산" (2004), 이제이북스
- Janssen, Wilhelm, "코젤렉의 개념사 사전" (2010), 푸른역사
- Kant, Immanuel, "Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis", pp.125~172 (1983), Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
- 백종현, "실천이성비판" (2002), 아카넷
- 백종현, "순수이성비판 2" (2006), 아카넷
- Kant, Immanuel, "도덕 형이상학을 위한 기초 놓기" (2007), 책세상
- Kant, Immanuel, "영구 평화론: 하나의 철학적 기획" (2008), 서광사
- Kant, Immanuel, "세계 시민적 관점에서 본 보편사의 이념, In 칸트의 역사 철학", pp.23~45 (2009), 서광사
- Kant, Immanuel, "다시 제기된 문제, In 칸트의 역사 철학", pp.121~142 (2009), 서광사
- 백종현, "윤리형이상학" (2012), 아카넷
- 김양현, "목적의 왕국: 칸트 윤리학의 새로운 도전" (2007), 철학과 현실사
- Kymlicka, Will, "The social contract tradition, In Companion to Ethics", pp.186~196 (1993), Basil Blackwell
- Plato, "국가ㆍ政體" (1997), 서광사
- Rawls, John, "정치적 자유주의" (1998), 동명사
- 김만권, "만민법" (2009), 아카넷
- Sen, Amartya, "정체성과 폭력" (2009), 바이북스
- Singer, Peter, "세계화의 윤리" (2003), 아카넷
- 박정희, "도덕성이란 무엇인가" (2006), 철학과현실사