SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies / 2006 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1

Çağdaş Demokrasi Kuramında Normatif Gerekçelendirme ve Siyasal İstikrar Sorunu: Kant, Rawls ve Habermas

The Problem of Normative Justification and Political Stability in Contemporary Democratic Theory: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas

Murat ÖZBANK
Pages
51–75
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The paper concludes with the argument that Habermas' approach is conceptually more sophisticated and practically more relevant when compared with the other two, and, as such, it offers a more promising solution to the problem at hand.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper focuses on the problem of justifying the normative claim to legitimacy and maintaining the stability of democratic political structures under conditions of cultural diversity.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The author defines the problem in terms of its theoretical and practical implications and presents exegetical summaries of three philosophical solutions to it: Immanuel Kant's attempt to ground a universalistic philosophy of morality on the assumption of the transcendental unity of practical reason, John Rawls' idea for an "overlapping consensus," and Jürgen Habermas' discourse theoretical grounding of a deliberative model of democracy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The paper concludes with the argument that Habermas' approach is conceptually more sophisticated and practically more relevant when compared with the other two, and, as such, it offers a more promising solution to the problem at hand.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper focuses on the problem of justifying the normative claim to legitimacy and maintaining the stability of democratic political structures under conditions of cultural diversity. The author defines the problem in terms of its theoretical and practical implications and presents exegetical summaries of three philosophical solutions to it: Immanuel Kant's attempt to ground a universalistic philosophy of morality on the assumption of the transcendental unity of practical reason, John Rawls' idea for an "overlapping consensus," and Jürgen Habermas' discourse theoretical grounding of a deliberative model of democracy. The paper concludes with the argument that Habermas' approach is conceptually more sophisticated and practically more relevant when compared with the other two, and, as such, it offers a more promising solution to the problem at hand.

Özet

Bu makale, kültürel çeşitlilik koşulları altında demokratik siyasal yapıların normatif meşruiyet iddialarının nasıl temellendirilebileceği ve bu yapıların istikrarının nasıl sağlanabileceği sorununa odaklanmaktadır. Yazar, bu sorunu kuramsal ve pratik boyutlarıyla tanımlamakta ve bu sorunu çözmeye yönelik üç farklı felsefi yaklaşımın eleştirel ve kıyaslamak birer özetini sunmaktadır. Bu yaklaşımlar, immanuel Kant'in evrenselci bir ahlak felsefesini aşkın aklın birliği varsayımı üzerinde temellendirme çabası, John Rawls'un "örtüşen görüşbirliği fikri" ve Jürgen Habermas'in tartışmacı bir demokrasi modelini, tartışım kuramında temellendirme çabası olarak özetlenebilir. Makale, Habermas 'in yaklaşımının, diğer iki yaklaşımla kıyaslandığında, kavramsal olarak daha gelişmiş ve pratik olarak da daha uygun cir çerçeve sunduğu ,dolayısıyla ele alınan sorunu daha umut vaat edici bir çözüm getirdiği tezini dile getirerek son bulur.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZBANK, M. (2006). Çağdaş Demokrasi Kuramında Normatif Gerekçelendirme ve Siyasal İstikrar Sorunu: Kant, Rawls ve Habermas. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1, 51–75. https://ajindex.com/articles/148196

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Alford, C.F. (1985). "Is Jürgen Habermas's Reconstructive Science Really Science?" Theory and Society, 14(3): 321-340.
  2. Almond, G.A. and Verba, S. (1965). The Civic Culture; Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, an Analytic Study. [Boston]: Little. Althusser, L. (1984). Essays on Ideology. London: Verso. Anna'im, A.A. (1990). Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
  3. Benhabib, S. (1994). "Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy," Constellations, 1(1): 26-52.
  4. Bernstein, R.J. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Oxford: B. Blackwell. Dahi, R.A. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  5. Flynn, J. (2003). "Habermas on Human Rights: Law, Morality, and Intercultural Dialogue," Social Theory and Practice," 29(3): 431-457.
  6. Gadamer, H.G. (1989). Truth and Method (2nd ed.). New York: Crossroad. Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., and Nowell-Smith, G. (1972). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (1st ed.). New York: International Publishers.
  7. Habermas, J. (1979). "What is Universal Pragmatics?" T. McCarthy (trans.), in Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press. ______"(1984). "The Theory of Communicative Action," T. McCarthy (trans.), vol. 1, Reason and Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press. _____ (1990a). "Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification," in C.N. Lenhardt and S. Weber (trans.), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action: 43-116.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. _______(1990b). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. C.N. Lenhardt and S. Weber (trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. _____ (1990c). "Reconstruction and Interpretation in the Social Sciences," in C.N. Lenhardt and S. Weber (trans.), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ______ (1993a). Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. C. Cronin (trans.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. _____ (1993b). "Remarks on Discourse Ethics," in C. Cronin (trans.), Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ______(1995). "Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls' Political Liberalism," The Journal of Philosophy, 92(3): 109-131. _____ (1996). Between Facts and Norm: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and