Navigation/Menü: Links auf weitere Seiten dieser Website
|Titelzusatz||democracy and dehumanization|
|Auflage/Stand||2nd slightly rev. ed.|
|Freie Schlagwörter||Freedom; Civilization; Groupishness; Duties; Persons in Grammar; status communicativus; Neutralization; Conformity; Realistic Democratic Punishment; Rule of Weighing Freedom; Equity and Solidarity|
|DDC||100 Philosophie und Psychologie
|Abstract||The special kind of freedom of homo sapiens includes both abiding by a – normative – ethics of Humanity and a contrasting ethics using the – empirical – ability to dehumanize others. We humans are able to switch rather easily between both. The grammar of our Western lan-guages indicates that, and Western political philosophy defines the dignity of man by a similar formula.
Regarding punishment and crime, our psyche works with techniques of neutralizing brutal acts. Even we “good ones” suppress acting in-humanely towards others by the method of neutralizing or better by collectivizing ourselves. We democrats submit blindly to the Rule of Law and the mightiness of our own Justice. Easily justifying lifelong incarceration without accepting a bit of personal responsibility for our own decisions is a kind of a collective ritual of de-individuation sov-ereign democrats should be aware of.
In order to define humanity as well as its negation, inhumanity, the simple Democratic Trinity of “Freedom, Equity and Solidarity” we should turn to. Freedom means, for instance, private rights, self-defense, personality, and egoism/duty to yourself. Equity includes fairness, contracts, and cruel retaliation/duty to peers. Solidarity com-prises security, taxes, prevention, humanity, charity, and: inhumane collectivism/duty to society.
With a set of four theses I shall try reducing complexity:
I. Jurisprudence and Political Science: There might be “Three Democ-ratic Steps of Punishment.”
A. Democracy in light of punishment might be defined by freedom, fairness, humanity.
B. A crime in such a democracy means “gaining freedom,” by acting “unfairly,” and “inhumanely.”
C. A democratic punishment implies correcting the wrong by “taking freedom,” while reacting “fairly” and “humanely.”
II. Linguistics and Culture: The Grammar of Western languages indi-cates we are prepared for both Democracy in a We-group and for its Negation. Therefore Freedom might be defined as “status communica-tivus,” too.
III. Psychology and Ethics: Milgram et al. prove that the majority of us cannot avoid “obedience and submission”. Therefore we have to develop both strong collective ethics and, at least for leaders, a “Per-sonal Democratic Identity”.
VI. Finally, Philosophical Anthropology: The favored “Rule of Weighing Political Acts Democratically” means harmonizing in each important individual case “freedom, equity and solidarity”.
|Inhalt||I. Prologue: Ethics and Anthropology 6
II. Part 1: Democracy 11
A. The Basic Ideals 11
B. Freedom According to Hobbes 11
C. Civilization According to Locke and Mill 13
D. Including Rousseau: State and Solidarity 14
E. Western Democracies 17
F. My Background: Western Anthropology 20
1. Philosophical Anthropology and Western Civilization 20
2. Reality of Groupishness and the Fiction of Freedom 23
3. Freedom and Responsibility, Western Groupishness and Collective Guilt 26
4. “Family” and “Duties”, Ideal of Eastern Civilizations 28
5. “Peers and Asceticism”, the Limitation of raw Models 33
6. Western Diagram: Freedom, Equity and Solidarity 34
G. First Thesis: Three Democratic Steps to Punishment 36
III. Part 2: Culture 38
A. Communication and Culture 38
B. Persons in Grammar of Western Languages 42
C. Grammar and Western Philosophy 46
D. Second Thesis: Freedom as “status communicativus” 48
E. A Conclusion by Anthropology 51
IV. Part 3: Psychology 52
A. Introduction 52
B. Techniques of Neutralization, Matza/Sykes 53
C. Experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo 55
D. Neutralizing in Wartimes 58
E. From Neutralization to Dehumanization 59
F. Conformity and Collective Ethics 62
G. Third thesis: “Personal Democratic Identity” 63
V. Part 4: Punishment 66
A. Three Kinds of Ethics and Cruelties of Punishment 66
B. Realistic Democratic Punishment 68
C. Parallelism of three Approaches 70
D. The State as an Actor 72
E. Consequences for Types of Punishment 73
F. “Rule of Weighing Freedom, Equity and Solidarity” 75
G. A Fourth and Final Three-pointed Thesis 78
VI. Epilogue: Anthropology and Ethics 79
|Erstellt am||29.09.2010 - 15:31:35|
|Letzte Änderung||29.09.2010 - 15:31:46|