Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.15388/polit.2022.105.3
V. Valentinavičius, V. Morkevičius, Giedrius Zvaliauskas, Monika Briediene
The securitization of the COVID-19 pandemic allowed governments in democratic countries to introduce extraordinary management measures that involved limiting various human rights. However, sound democratic governance always requires public debate on any policies introduced. These debates occur in multiple arenas and the parliament is among the most notable. In the context of human rights, some studies identified parliament as one of the most important agencies that promote human rights protection and oversee executive authorities (Lyer, 2019; Ncube, 2020). This article examines whether and how Lithuanian parliamentarians and government members addressed human rights during the Seimas debates when issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic were discussed. It investigates whether the Seimas could be considered an important agent contributing to the oversight of human rights in Lithuania. The article employs transcripts from the Seimas plenary debates as a data source, particularly speeches from the government question time from 2020.03 to 2021.01. The results of the qualitative thematic analysis revealed that human rights were generally not the main topic of the COVID-19 pandemic debates on the Seimas floor during government hours. It also showed that the attitudes of political parties toward specific human rights tended to shift when they switched from the opposition to the ruling majority and vice versa.
{"title":"Appeals to Human Rights in the Context of Managing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis of Government Hours in the Lithuanian Parliament in 2020–2021","authors":"V. Valentinavičius, V. Morkevičius, Giedrius Zvaliauskas, Monika Briediene","doi":"10.15388/polit.2022.105.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2022.105.3","url":null,"abstract":"The securitization of the COVID-19 pandemic allowed governments in democratic countries to introduce extraordinary management measures that involved limiting various human rights. However, sound democratic governance always requires public debate on any policies introduced. These debates occur in multiple arenas and the parliament is among the most notable. In the context of human rights, some studies identified parliament as one of the most important agencies that promote human rights protection and oversee executive authorities (Lyer, 2019; Ncube, 2020). This article examines whether and how Lithuanian parliamentarians and government members addressed human rights during the Seimas debates when issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic were discussed. It investigates whether the Seimas could be considered an important agent contributing to the oversight of human rights in Lithuania. The article employs transcripts from the Seimas plenary debates as a data source, particularly speeches from the government question time from 2020.03 to 2021.01. The results of the qualitative thematic analysis revealed that human rights were generally not the main topic of the COVID-19 pandemic debates on the Seimas floor during government hours. It also showed that the attitudes of political parties toward specific human rights tended to shift when they switched from the opposition to the ruling majority and vice versa.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":"358 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41274416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.15388/polit.2022.105.4
Giedrius Česnakas
The collective political imagination establishes world orders that define how political communities interact. The relative power of the West allowed the introduction of the first global world order, known as the Westphalian. However, the increasing relative power of the People’s Republic of China allows it to promote an alternative world order vision, which is the result of its political imagination. Zhao Tingyang’s re-imagined hierarchic Tianxia order is seen as a challenger to the Westphalian order. This paper analyzes whether the Tianxia order can replace the Westphalian, considering the contemporary global political environment. The discussion is based on Jeffrey Legro’s theory of collective ideas and foreign policy change, applying it to world order replacement analysis. The findings suggest that the Tianxia has significant limitations in replacing the Westphalian world order. The Westphalian order orthodoxy remains strong. The order is also adaptable, capable of including hierarchical elements. Despite the increase of the PRC’s relative power and its greater capabilities to shape norms with domestic support, continuity usually prevails, so the habit of sovereignty prevails over hierarchical order. Finally, the article argues that the Tianxia order is not resilient to the anarchic-competitive element of human nature.
{"title":"The Collective Imagination and the Limitations for the Tianxia to Replace the Westphalian World Order","authors":"Giedrius Česnakas","doi":"10.15388/polit.2022.105.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2022.105.4","url":null,"abstract":"The collective political imagination establishes world orders that define how political communities interact. The relative power of the West allowed the introduction of the first global world order, known as the Westphalian. However, the increasing relative power of the People’s Republic of China allows it to promote an alternative world order vision, which is the result of its political imagination. Zhao Tingyang’s re-imagined hierarchic Tianxia order is seen as a challenger to the Westphalian order. This paper analyzes whether the Tianxia order can replace the Westphalian, considering the contemporary global political environment. The discussion is based on Jeffrey Legro’s theory of collective ideas and foreign policy change, applying it to world order replacement analysis. The findings suggest that the Tianxia has significant limitations in replacing the Westphalian world order. The Westphalian order orthodoxy remains strong. The order is also adaptable, capable of including hierarchical elements. Despite the increase of the PRC’s relative power and its greater capabilities to shape norms with domestic support, continuity usually prevails, so the habit of sovereignty prevails over hierarchical order. Finally, the article argues that the Tianxia order is not resilient to the anarchic-competitive element of human nature.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44346866","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-18DOI: 10.15388/polit.2022.105.2
Marta Gadeikienė
The literature indicates an ever-growing involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in foreign policy and hence an increasing potential for them to exert influence over it. Approaching foreign aid policy as a suitable empirical indicator of a country’s foreign policy, this paper examines the case of Lithuanian development NGOs’ (NGDOs’) influence over bilateral foreign aid policy. Based on the mechanistic approach to social science, this paper demonstrates that NGDO influence is observed when an NGDO has resources to assist decision-makers in policy implementation; when it behaves strategically; and when decision-makers’ access to these resources is threatened. Although other NGDO’s resources are insufficient to result in the NGDO being able to exercise influence, they help to strengthen the long-term collaborative relationship with decision-makers, which is necessary for the micro-phenomenon of NGDO influence to occur. The paper concludes that the potential influence of Lithuanian NGDOs is limited, constrained by the scant demand for NGDOs’ resources and the unconducive institutional setting. But the paper identifies low issue salience and a focused concentration of valuable resources within Lithuanian NGDOs as factors which increase the likelihood of NGDO influence.
{"title":"When do Lithuanian NGDOs Succeed in Influencing Foreign Policy?","authors":"Marta Gadeikienė","doi":"10.15388/polit.2022.105.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2022.105.2","url":null,"abstract":"The literature indicates an ever-growing involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in foreign policy and hence an increasing potential for them to exert influence over it. Approaching foreign aid policy as a suitable empirical indicator of a country’s foreign policy, this paper examines the case of Lithuanian development NGOs’ (NGDOs’) influence over bilateral foreign aid policy. Based on the mechanistic approach to social science, this paper demonstrates that NGDO influence is observed when an NGDO has resources to assist decision-makers in policy implementation; when it behaves strategically; and when decision-makers’ access to these resources is threatened. Although other NGDO’s resources are insufficient to result in the NGDO being able to exercise influence, they help to strengthen the long-term collaborative relationship with decision-makers, which is necessary for the micro-phenomenon of NGDO influence to occur. The paper concludes that the potential influence of Lithuanian NGDOs is limited, constrained by the scant demand for NGDOs’ resources and the unconducive institutional setting. But the paper identifies low issue salience and a focused concentration of valuable resources within Lithuanian NGDOs as factors which increase the likelihood of NGDO influence.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48253101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-09DOI: 10.15388/polit.2022.105.1
Inga Patkauskaitė-Tiuchtienė, Rasa Bortkevičiūtė, V. Nakrošis, Ramūnas Vilpišauskas
Data shows that significant events such natural disasters, anthropogenic disasters and malign activities by hostile actors, often having cross-border effects, have been on the rise. However, the studies of the effects of those events on public policies, governance and institutions remain inconclusive. In this article we present a research agenda which proposes the classification of the significant events on the basis of their characteristics backing it with a newly compiled data set on significant events which took place in Lithuania in 2004-2020 and outline the directions for an in-depth analysis of the causal mechanisms of how those events affect policy and institutional change. We conclude with concrete proposals for further research which could provide theoretically innovative and policy relevant insights into the political processes which translate responses to significant events into policy and institutional changes affecting welfare institutions and resilience of society.
{"title":"The Impact of Significant Events on Public Policy and Institutional Change: Towards a Research Agenda","authors":"Inga Patkauskaitė-Tiuchtienė, Rasa Bortkevičiūtė, V. Nakrošis, Ramūnas Vilpišauskas","doi":"10.15388/polit.2022.105.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2022.105.1","url":null,"abstract":"Data shows that significant events such natural disasters, anthropogenic disasters and malign activities by hostile actors, often having cross-border effects, have been on the rise. However, the studies of the effects of those events on public policies, governance and institutions remain inconclusive. In this article we present a research agenda which proposes the classification of the significant events on the basis of their characteristics backing it with a newly compiled data set on significant events which took place in Lithuania in 2004-2020 and outline the directions for an in-depth analysis of the causal mechanisms of how those events affect policy and institutional change. We conclude with concrete proposals for further research which could provide theoretically innovative and policy relevant insights into the political processes which translate responses to significant events into policy and institutional changes affecting welfare institutions and resilience of society.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43699689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-05DOI: 10.15388/polit.2021.104.5
A. Macintyre, A. Bielskis
{"title":"Three Perspectives on Marxism and Christianity (Translated by Andrius Bielskis)","authors":"A. Macintyre, A. Bielskis","doi":"10.15388/polit.2021.104.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2021.104.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47177776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-05DOI: 10.15388/polit.2021.104.4
A. Bielskis
The paper examines Fyodor Dostoevsky’s ethical views – especially as exemplified in the dictum “each of us is guilty of everything against all, and I am more than all” – in light of their political implications. It focuses on two related issues. First, Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophical interpretation of Dostoevsky’s “I am more than the others” is contrasted with its interpretation by Sigmund Freud, who famously argued that Dostoevsky’s fixation on guilt was the consequence of his neurotic intention to murder his father. Freud’s claim has been refuted by Dostoevsky’s bibliographers. To understand the meaning of “I am more than all,” its semantic-narrative context in The Brothers Karamazov is therefore discussed. Second, the paper then examines the political implications of Dostoevsky’s ethics of redemption. Given that there are at least three traditions of theorizing the political – classical-Aristotelian, Schmittian, and liberal – the paper examines how Dostoevsky’s ethics of redemption can be positioned vis-à-vis these conceptualizations and which of them it can enrich the most.
{"title":"Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “I am more than all” and Its Implications for the Political","authors":"A. Bielskis","doi":"10.15388/polit.2021.104.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2021.104.4","url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines Fyodor Dostoevsky’s ethical views – especially as exemplified in the dictum “each of us is guilty of everything against all, and I am more than all” – in light of their political implications. It focuses on two related issues. First, Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophical interpretation of Dostoevsky’s “I am more than the others” is contrasted with its interpretation by Sigmund Freud, who famously argued that Dostoevsky’s fixation on guilt was the consequence of his neurotic intention to murder his father. Freud’s claim has been refuted by Dostoevsky’s bibliographers. To understand the meaning of “I am more than all,” its semantic-narrative context in The Brothers Karamazov is therefore discussed. Second, the paper then examines the political implications of Dostoevsky’s ethics of redemption. Given that there are at least three traditions of theorizing the political – classical-Aristotelian, Schmittian, and liberal – the paper examines how Dostoevsky’s ethics of redemption can be positioned vis-à-vis these conceptualizations and which of them it can enrich the most.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46821666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-15DOI: 10.15388/polit.2021.104.3
Gintautas Grigonis
This article analyzes Immanuel Kant’s concept of radical evil within the broader corpus of Kant’s practical works in order to ascertain whether suicidal terrorism can be interpreted using his philosophical framework. Said analysis establishes the dynamic between radical evil and other characteristics of Kantian human nature – unsocial-sociability and propensity towards humanity, whilst focusing on the political implications of said dynamic. When analyzed utilizing the established framework of politics of radical evil, suicidal terrorism reveals the extremities of human behavior as well as potential flaws of Kantian philosophy.
{"title":"Politics and Terrorism of Immanuel Kant‘s Radical Evil","authors":"Gintautas Grigonis","doi":"10.15388/polit.2021.104.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2021.104.3","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes Immanuel Kant’s concept of radical evil within the broader corpus of Kant’s practical works in order to ascertain whether suicidal terrorism can be interpreted using his philosophical framework. Said analysis establishes the dynamic between radical evil and other characteristics of Kantian human nature – unsocial-sociability and propensity towards humanity, whilst focusing on the political implications of said dynamic. When analyzed utilizing the established framework of politics of radical evil, suicidal terrorism reveals the extremities of human behavior as well as potential flaws of Kantian philosophy.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47814013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-03DOI: 10.15388/polit.2021.104.2
Simona Merkinaitė
The legal challenges arising from the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem are widely discussed in legal theory. Less attention is given to the trial in the framework of political and moral philosophy, where the key focus remains on the nature and the origins of evil (without a doubt, fuelled by Hannah Arendt’s definition of banality of evil). However, the trail itself present equally challenging question of human response to evil: how are we, the members of the modern political locus to respond to the evil of inhuman proportions? This article aims to answer the question through the reconstruction of debate that took place during the period of the trail (from the date of capture of Eichmann in 1960, till his execution in 1962) and the arguments “for” and “against” the trial by Arendt, Karl Jaspers, Isaiah Berlin, Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber. Beyond these arguments, there is an engaging philosophical debate about the nature and origins of justice, the limits of guilt and retribution, crime and punishment. It is argued that Arendt’s pro-trail stance provide for a way of engagement with the questions of evil by modern political men.
{"title":"Evil and Politics: The Possibility of Response to Evil and Its Limits. The Case of Eichmann Trial","authors":"Simona Merkinaitė","doi":"10.15388/polit.2021.104.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2021.104.2","url":null,"abstract":"The legal challenges arising from the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem are widely discussed in legal theory. Less attention is given to the trial in the framework of political and moral philosophy, where the key focus remains on the nature and the origins of evil (without a doubt, fuelled by Hannah Arendt’s definition of banality of evil). However, the trail itself present equally challenging question of human response to evil: how are we, the members of the modern political locus to respond to the evil of inhuman proportions? This article aims to answer the question through the reconstruction of debate that took place during the period of the trail (from the date of capture of Eichmann in 1960, till his execution in 1962) and the arguments “for” and “against” the trial by Arendt, Karl Jaspers, Isaiah Berlin, Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber. Beyond these arguments, there is an engaging philosophical debate about the nature and origins of justice, the limits of guilt and retribution, crime and punishment. It is argued that Arendt’s pro-trail stance provide for a way of engagement with the questions of evil by modern political men.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44505654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.15388/polit.2021.104.1
A. Jokūbaitis, L. Jokubaitis
The aim of the paper is to prove the incompatibility of Kantian philosophy with empirical political science. The nonexistence of such a science in Kant’s structure of reason is not a coincidence that was determined by historical contingencies, it is a necessary position of his teaching. The domination of morality in Kant’s conception of practical reason does not leave any room for empirical science of politics. Firstly, introduction of methods borrowed from the natural sciences would lead to the demoralization of politics. Secondly, empirical science of politics deforms our understanding of politics. Thirdly, when politics is divorced from morality it loses its ontological foundation. Empirical science of politics that only attempts to investigate facts is incapable of understanding the role of ideas and for this reason does not distinguish between empirical and conceptual factors. Such a science does not recognize the human person as a free subject of morality and sees him as a consequence of external factors. Finally, political science that is divorced from morals deforms understanding of practical reason.
{"title":"Immanuel Kant's Challenge to Political Science","authors":"A. Jokūbaitis, L. Jokubaitis","doi":"10.15388/polit.2021.104.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2021.104.1","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the paper is to prove the incompatibility of Kantian philosophy with empirical political science. The nonexistence of such a science in Kant’s structure of reason is not a coincidence that was determined by historical contingencies, it is a necessary position of his teaching. The domination of morality in Kant’s conception of practical reason does not leave any room for empirical science of politics. Firstly, introduction of methods borrowed from the natural sciences would lead to the demoralization of politics. Secondly, empirical science of politics deforms our understanding of politics. Thirdly, when politics is divorced from morality it loses its ontological foundation. Empirical science of politics that only attempts to investigate facts is incapable of understanding the role of ideas and for this reason does not distinguish between empirical and conceptual factors. Such a science does not recognize the human person as a free subject of morality and sees him as a consequence of external factors. Finally, political science that is divorced from morals deforms understanding of practical reason.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42107408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-01DOI: 10.15388/polit.2021.103.4
Gintas Karalius
In spite of a growing number of contemporary publications in the field of political philosophy that are dedicated to the concept of honor and to it’s analysis, there still is a lack of a systemic presentation of the conceptual field of honor itself. Political theorists and philosophers that treat the subject of honor state out their definitions of honor and compare them with one another, yet a general overview of the competing definitions and their critical comparison is still a rarety. A systemic presentation of all prominent contemporary philosophical studies that treat the concept of honor is useful in two ways. It facilitates the understanding of the main arguments that determine different definitions of honor, as well as it identifies major polemical issues that set the diferent concepts of honor apart. This article suggests two main arguments – a critical and an adaptational – for interpreting and comparing the different concepts of honor in contemporary political philosophy. Structuring the conceptual field of honor with these two arguments offers an analytic tool for further analyses of honor that are based on concrete polemical issues. It also gives a new perspective to explain the reemergence of honor in contemporary political philosophy.
{"title":"The Concept of Honor in Contemporary Political Philosophy: A Critical and an Adaptational Argument","authors":"Gintas Karalius","doi":"10.15388/polit.2021.103.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2021.103.4","url":null,"abstract":" In spite of a growing number of contemporary publications in the field of political philosophy that are dedicated to the concept of honor and to it’s analysis, there still is a lack of a systemic presentation of the conceptual field of honor itself. Political theorists and philosophers that treat the subject of honor state out their definitions of honor and compare them with one another, yet a general overview of the competing definitions and their critical comparison is still a rarety. A systemic presentation of all prominent contemporary philosophical studies that treat the concept of honor is useful in two ways. It facilitates the understanding of the main arguments that determine different definitions of honor, as well as it identifies major polemical issues that set the diferent concepts of honor apart. This article suggests two main arguments – a critical and an adaptational – for interpreting and comparing the different concepts of honor in contemporary political philosophy. Structuring the conceptual field of honor with these two arguments offers an analytic tool for further analyses of honor that are based on concrete polemical issues. It also gives a new perspective to explain the reemergence of honor in contemporary political philosophy.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44989549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：