• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.129
• /
• pp.247-265
• /
• 2014

In this paper I will undertake three tasks: first, to identify the difference between John Rawls's liberal conception of liberty and Will Kymlicka's; second, to briefly examine the problems with liberal conception of liberty; finally, to propose a certain alternative that will be able to make liberal conception of liberty more meaningful In Kymlicka's view, Rawls seems to fail to make the best defence of freedom of choice because he wants to explain of individual freedom on the basis of Kant's moral theory about liberty. Kymlicka thinks that it is not a desirable way of defending liberal conception of liberty. According to his liberal theory, Rawls's defence of freedom of choice might make us think that we should have our freedom of choice for its own sake because freedom is the most valuable in the world. So Kymlicka wants to provide stronger argument to defend freedom of choice in liberalism. He insists that it is our projects and tasks that are most important things in our lives. Furthermore, he argues that we should conceive our freedom of choice as a precondition for pursuing those projects and practices that are valued for our good lives. Now I want to look at two concepts of liberty in liberalism with Rawls's theory and Kymlicaka's. In this paper, I shall look at criticisms of the liberal account of freedom of choice. These would give us a certain chance for understanding true freedom.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.11-38
• /
• 2009

"Bioethics" may have various meanings depending on its roles. It may mean professional ethics for scientists and physicians, etc. It may also mean an academic discipline using interdisciplinary approach as well as a philosophical or a legal approach. "Bioethics" as an interdisciplinary study should often deal with public policy on bioethical issues. I call this role bioethics as a study of bioethics policy, which has to be developed as a new discipline. From this perspective, I deal with bioethical issues relevant to a human life before birth. There are various and often conflicting arguments about the moral status of a human life before birth such as the fertilization argument, the argument of genetic identity, so-called the "14 days" argument focusing on the formation of primitive streak, the argument of sentient being, and Michael Sandle's argument of an embryo as a being between a thing and a person. I argue that each of them is reasonable. Thus we are faced with reasonable disagreement on the views over whether a human life before birth has the same right to life as that of a person or whether right to life may be considered to be a matter of degree. If we acknowledge reasonable disagreement, as John Rawls pointed out, we should tolerate the views from ours in a plural society. Therefore, we cannot help making a policy that allows abortion and embryonic research with some limitations. When we say a certain act is morally permissible, "moral permissibility" does not mean that the act is morally right for all. Rather it means that the act cannot help being morally allowed for some persons although the others do not believe its moral rightness because they cannot right now rationally persuade others to accept their view.

• Journal of Agricultural Extension & Community Development
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.17-41
• /
• 1996

In the situation of rapid industrialization based on the lopsided development of economy since 1960, Korean rural society has faced a crisis of disruption. As a result, the civilian government has tried a few actions to change the circumstance. However, it is said that the coral polices were not satisfactory. Those who were concerned with the rural problems of these days argue that it is necessary to adopt new policies and further to change the policymakers` philosophies concerning the matter. The arguments are certainly based on the beliefs that the sound policies come from the sound philosophies. This study aims to analyze the existing rural polices and their policymakers` philosophies and to design of a new paradigm. For the purpose, this study was set there specific objectives: First, to overview the moor points of Quantitative Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and the Social Justice Theory of John Rawls, the contrasting frameworks of the moral philosophies; Second, to trace the major or trade of the rural policies since 1960s in Korea; Third, to analyze the policymakers` philosophies reflected on the rural policies; Fourth, to design a new paradigm of the rural policies. This study mainly adopted descriptive method based on the various source of government and non-government statistics, white papers and other researches. The major findings of this study may be summarized as follows: 1. The historical epochs of the rural policies in Korea was divided into the periods: (1) An organizational and institutional establishment for self-reliance of main crops and the New Village Movement $(1969{\sim}70)$; (2) An initiation of `open-door` policies to the foreign farm products $(1970{\sim}80)$; (3) Completion of the UR meetings and the recommendations of the Rural and Fishery Development Commission (1980-present). 2. It was found that the philosophical foundations of coral policies were directly reflected from the utilitarianism of the national development. Under the philosophy it was the modem sector of economy that was to spearhead the national development, and the rural sector was situated to the peripheral position and hardly in the spot-light. Therefore, it may be said that the present situation of the rural society was largely rooted in the model of economic development. 3. As a new direction of the coral policies, many studies were focussing on the NTC (non-trade concerns) functions of agriculture for the present and future society. The researchers argue that the cost of protecting and supporting agriculture and rural society may be higher than that of the burden which the nation should be bear in the case of failure of agriculture. Although it tray be true, however, it should be noted that the argument is another type of utilitarianism which prevailed in the past. As a philosophy of rural policies, utilitarianism is straight forward and persuasive, however, it has also limitations in terms of relativism in broad sense or social justice in specific manna. 4. This study suggests to set the philosophical foundations of rural policies on the basis of Rawl`s Theory of Justice mentioned earlier. It emphasizes the inviolability of social justice which was neglected for the national benefits timing the period of development dictatorship in 1960s and 1970s. The principles of social justice for coral people were identified as twofold; (1) The principle of the t equal liberty; (2) (a) Difference principle, (b) The principle of fair equality of opportunity.

• 한국사회정책
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.57-91
• /
• 2018

Despite the rapid growth of social care, understanding of care is segmental and caring is still marginalizing. The socialization of caring is actually a 'half-socialization' that is the result of injustice surrounding caring. Therefore, it is necessary to approach the problem of caring in terms of justice. In this paper, I discuss the limitations of social justice based on John Rawls 's social contract theory in the discussion of caring justice through feminists'writings on caring ethics. And then applying Nancy Fraser' s three scales of Justice-redistribution, recognition, and representation, the concept of caring justice has been newly constructed. The concept of caring is defined as a unified concept of caring including the aspect of the social rights of the care recipient as well as the labor rights of the care provider. Based on the analysis of care justice, we derive the ideal types of care policy and then evaluate the long-term care policy for the elderly, which is the central axis of Korean care policy. The results of this study are as follows: First, it is necessary to strengthen the labor rights of care providers especially for the socialization of care responsibilities and the proper allocation of social resources. Second, a service delivery system and care culture are needed to ensure the relational autonomy of care-receivers and care-givers for caring ethics and individualization of care. Third, the issue of care should be treated as the central agenda of politics in order to distribute care responsibility democratically and to distribute legitimate resources. This requires a paradigm shift from marginalization of care to mainstreaming of care. Ultimately, we should aim for a Caring Society.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.129
• /
• pp.23-51
• /
• 2014

Christine M. Korsgaard believes that constructivism can respond to moral skepticism without depending upon moral realism. The purpose of this paper is to examine Korsgaard's kantian constructivism and her positions on moral realism. According to Korsgaard moral realism cannot answer normative questions in that it sees the function of moral concepts as describing the reality and so accepts the model of applied knowledge for action. In contrast Korsgaard insists that constructivism is better at justifying normativity since it regards moral concepts as representing the solutions to practical problems and so shows that moral principles are necessarily involved in the practical problems of agency. Korsgaard's constructivism has antirealistic elements such as pure proceduralism, the constitutive model to exclude ontological, metaphysical meanings, and the account of human beings as the sources of values. In spite of those antirealistic elements it is difficult to jump to a conclusion that Korsgaard's constructivism is antirealism. Korsgaard, in the early book, The Sources of Normativity, says that kantian constructivism has something to do with a form of realism, or procedural moral realism. And in the following books she argues that constructivism is compatible with realism although she pays attention to the practical implications of constructivism and then sets aside its ontological relevance. That is, Korsgaard does not want that her constructivism results in antirealism. Korsgaard's realism, however, is too weak to be called as realism. There is, also, a question why one would rather take a constructivist approach if one holds on to realism.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.53-78
• /
• 2018

In the moral culture of the West, love and justice are two commands with roots in ancient times. One is the heritage of Hebraism, and the other belongs to the tradition of Hebraism and Hellenism. The two concepts are the most important virtues required for preserving stability in society. These two commands are compatible, in an exclusive relationship to each other. To ultimately seek their reconciliation, the precise concept analysis and understanding of each of them should be premised on, due to the multi-layered meaning of implications of the two concepts. To this end, we first have started with a lexical meaning and have done a conceptual analysis of what these two concepts are expressing. We have looked at Paul $Ric{\oe}ur$ in his interpretation of the discourse of love and justice. Finally, we looked at how these two concepts are narrated in literature. Through the literary works of Stendal, Albert Camus, and Dostoevsky, we have seen examples of literary configurations that have been embodied in life. In this way, through conceptual analysis, discourse analysis, and narrative analysis of the two concepts, the following conclusions were drawn. Love and justice were not a matter of choice. We could see coldness and unrealism of a society lacking love or with a problem of unclean love, through Stendhal's and Albert Camus' novels and their actual debate. In addition, in unclean paternalism, risk of the power of love blocking certain a certain touch of justice was also confirmed. So, it was necessary for a healthy future society to explore the possibility of the coexistence of love and justice. We confirmed the possibility of compatibility in a 'considerate balance' wherein the 'moral judgment in situation' is required, as Paul $Ric{\oe}ur$ expressed. This ideal situation may be realized when forms of love involving solidarity, mutual care, and compassion with pain like Dostoevsky are combined with the principle of distributional justice. When Albert Camus pursued justice and eventually faced reality and mentioned the need for mercy, he could have made a moral judgment based on this situation. In the end, love protects justice, and justice contributes to the realization of love. Justice reduces super-ethical love to moral categories, and love plays a role in enabling justice to exert its full force.