SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 25

MICHAEL J. SANDEL, PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY AND JUSTICE

MICHAEL J. SANDEL, KAMUSAL FELSEFE VE ADALET

Koray Tütüncü
Pages
475–490
Publication Date
2014-04-09
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)

Thus we need an understanding of justice and belonging beyond the limits of liberalism.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Through centralizing the critical perspective of political philosopher Michael J.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By doing this, he exposes the weak points of significant public philosophies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus we need an understanding of justice and belonging beyond the limits of liberalism.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Michael J. Sandel · Liberalism · Justice

Abstract

Through centralizing the critical perspective of political philosopher Michael J. Sandel, this article analyzes the moral dilemmas and political problems that challenge individuals in liberal democratic societies. Sandel indicates the philosophical dimensions embedded in daily debates and shows the active participation of each and every individual into public philosophies. By doing this, he exposes the weak points of significant public philosophies. As one of the most popular public philosophies of our age, liberalism becomes the target of Sandelian criticism for eroding our common values and bonds of citizenship. Thus we need an understanding of justice and belonging beyond the limits of liberalism.

Özet

Bu makalede liberal demokratik toplumlarda bireylerin karşılaştıkları ahlaki ikilemler ve siyasi sorunlar siyaset filozofu Michael J. Sandel'in eleştirel perspektifi merkeze alınarak analiz edilmektedir. Sandel gündelik tartışmalara içkin felsefi boyutları açığa çıkararak her bireyin kamusal felsefelere aktif katılımını gösterir. Bu itibarla çok önemli olan kamusal felsefelerin zayıf yönlerini açığa çıkarır. Günümüzün en popüler kamusal felsefelerinden olan liberalizm, ortak değerlerimizi ve yurttaşlık bağlarımızı aşındırdığı için eleştirel bir hedef halini alır. Liberalizmin sınırlılıklarını aşan bir adalet ve aidiyet anlayışına ihtiyacımız vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tütüncü, K. (2014). MICHAEL J. SANDEL, PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY AND JUSTICE. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 25, 475–490. https://ajindex.com/articles/267254

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Appleby, J. (1982), “What is Still American in the Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson?”, The William and Marry Quarterly, 39(2): 287-309.
  2. Aronovitch, H. (2000), “From Communitarianism to Republicanism: On Sandel and His Critics”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 30(4): 621-647.
  3. Baker, C. E. (1985), “Sandel on Rawls”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 133(4): 895-928.
  4. Bellamy, R. (1999), Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Compromise, London ve New York: Routledge. Boaz, D. (1997), Libertarianism: A Primer, New York: The Free Press.
  5. Caney, S. (1991), “Sandel’s Critique of the Prımacy of Justice: A Liberal Rejoinder”, British Journal of Political Science, 21(4): 511-521.
  6. Cochran, C. E. (1989), “The Thin Theory of Community: The Communitarians and Their Critics”, Political Studies, 32: 422-435.
  7. Goodin, R. (1995), Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Hardin, R. (1988),
  9. Morality Within the Limits of Reason, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  10. Herzog, D. (1986), “Some Questions for Republicans”, Political Theory, 14(3): 473-493.
  11. Hinton, T. (2001), “Sandel on Tolerance”, Analysis, 61(4): 327-333.
  12. Horowitz, A. and R. K. Matthews (1997), “ ‘Narcissism of the Minor Differences’: What is at Issue and What is at Stake in the Civic Humanism Question”, Polity, 30 (1):1-27.
  13. Marks, J. (2001), “Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Michael Sandel, and the Politics of Transparency”, Polity, 33(4): 619-642.
  14. Mcdonald, C. and S. Hoffmann (2010),
  15. Rousseau and Freedom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Mill, J. S. (2004),
  17. Utilitarianism, The Pennsylvania State University, Electronic Classics Series, www.weltordnung.ch/books/Mill. Mosher, M. A. (1991), “Boundary Revisions: The Deconstruction of Moral Personality in Rawls, Nozick, Sandel and Parfit”, Political Studies, 39: 287-302.
  18. Moore, M. S. (1989), “Sandelian Antiliberalism”, California Law Review, 77(3), 539-551. O’brien, C.C. (1996),“Thomas Jefforson: Radical and Racist”, The Atlantic Monthly, 278: 53-79. O’neill, O. (1988), “Ethical Reasoning and Ideological Pluralism”, Ethics, 98(4), 705-722.
  19. Raz, J. (1986),
  20. The Morality of Freedom, New York:Oxford University Press.
  21. Sandel, M. J. (1984), “The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self”, Political Theory, 12(1): 81-96.
  22. Sandel, M. J. (1996), “America’s Search for a New Public Philosophy”, The Atlantic Monthly, 277(3):57-74.Sandel, M. J (1998a),
  23. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge: University of Cambridge P