自由法则vs .大数法则,或人口统计学修辞如何引起焦虑(在德国)

Q2 Social Sciences Law and Ethics of Human Rights Pub Date : 2008-01-01 DOI:10.2202/1938-2545.1016
Jose Brunner
{"title":"自由法则vs .大数法则,或人口统计学修辞如何引起焦虑(在德国)","authors":"Jose Brunner","doi":"10.2202/1938-2545.1016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents the metaphysics of liberal rights reasoning on the one hand and that of demographic reasoning on the other, as exemplifying two worldviews that both compete and complement each other in the contemporary German public debate on demographic decline.First, this essay outlines the way in which liberal theorists of various outlooks, perfectionist and neutralist alike, assume that a wide range of rights serves not only the interests of those individuals who possess them, but that it constitutes the foundations of a just and stable political order in general and therefore is to the advantage of everyone.Second, the essay explains how demographic reasoning questions the assumption of harmony shared by the liberal approaches.Third, it provides an impression of the way in which demographic arguments have been deployed in the public sphere in Germany in the last few years. These arguments associate the autonomy of women with the demise of Germany. They claim that by encouraging women to pursue self-realization as self-interested individuals, the modern secular ethos of Germany as a democratic welfare society may be self-destructive in the long run, since it leads to sub-replacement fertility.Finally, the essay stresses that liberal and demographic perspectives share a “blindness” of historical events. In response, the conclusion brings history back in, by historicizing both demographic reasoning and demographic developments in Germany, with the aim of defusing some of the anxieties that may have been aroused by the current debate.","PeriodicalId":38947,"journal":{"name":"Law and Ethics of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1938-2545.1016","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Liberal Laws V. the Law of Large Numbers, or How Demographic Rhetoric Arouses Anxiety (in Germany)\",\"authors\":\"Jose Brunner\",\"doi\":\"10.2202/1938-2545.1016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper presents the metaphysics of liberal rights reasoning on the one hand and that of demographic reasoning on the other, as exemplifying two worldviews that both compete and complement each other in the contemporary German public debate on demographic decline.First, this essay outlines the way in which liberal theorists of various outlooks, perfectionist and neutralist alike, assume that a wide range of rights serves not only the interests of those individuals who possess them, but that it constitutes the foundations of a just and stable political order in general and therefore is to the advantage of everyone.Second, the essay explains how demographic reasoning questions the assumption of harmony shared by the liberal approaches.Third, it provides an impression of the way in which demographic arguments have been deployed in the public sphere in Germany in the last few years. These arguments associate the autonomy of women with the demise of Germany. They claim that by encouraging women to pursue self-realization as self-interested individuals, the modern secular ethos of Germany as a democratic welfare society may be self-destructive in the long run, since it leads to sub-replacement fertility.Finally, the essay stresses that liberal and demographic perspectives share a “blindness” of historical events. In response, the conclusion brings history back in, by historicizing both demographic reasoning and demographic developments in Germany, with the aim of defusing some of the anxieties that may have been aroused by the current debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Ethics of Human Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1938-2545.1016\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Ethics of Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Ethics of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文一方面提出了自由权利推理的形而上学,另一方面提出了人口推理的形而上学,作为在当代德国关于人口衰退的公共辩论中既相互竞争又相互补充的两种世界观的例子。首先,本文概述了各种观点的自由主义理论家,完美主义者和中立主义者都认为,广泛的权利不仅服务于拥有这些权利的个人的利益,而且它构成了一个公正和稳定的政治秩序的基础,因此对每个人都有利。其次,本文解释了人口统计学推理如何质疑自由主义方法所共享的和谐假设。第三,它提供了过去几年在德国公共领域部署人口统计学论点的方式的印象。这些论点把妇女的自主权与德国的灭亡联系在一起。他们声称,通过鼓励女性作为自我利益的个体追求自我实现,德国作为一个民主福利社会的现代世俗精神可能从长远来看是自我毁灭的,因为它导致了亚替代生育率。最后,这篇文章强调,自由主义和人口统计学观点在历史事件上都存在“盲目性”。作为回应,结论部分通过将德国的人口推理和人口发展历史化,将历史带回到历史中,目的是消除当前辩论可能引起的一些焦虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Liberal Laws V. the Law of Large Numbers, or How Demographic Rhetoric Arouses Anxiety (in Germany)
This paper presents the metaphysics of liberal rights reasoning on the one hand and that of demographic reasoning on the other, as exemplifying two worldviews that both compete and complement each other in the contemporary German public debate on demographic decline.First, this essay outlines the way in which liberal theorists of various outlooks, perfectionist and neutralist alike, assume that a wide range of rights serves not only the interests of those individuals who possess them, but that it constitutes the foundations of a just and stable political order in general and therefore is to the advantage of everyone.Second, the essay explains how demographic reasoning questions the assumption of harmony shared by the liberal approaches.Third, it provides an impression of the way in which demographic arguments have been deployed in the public sphere in Germany in the last few years. These arguments associate the autonomy of women with the demise of Germany. They claim that by encouraging women to pursue self-realization as self-interested individuals, the modern secular ethos of Germany as a democratic welfare society may be self-destructive in the long run, since it leads to sub-replacement fertility.Finally, the essay stresses that liberal and demographic perspectives share a “blindness” of historical events. In response, the conclusion brings history back in, by historicizing both demographic reasoning and demographic developments in Germany, with the aim of defusing some of the anxieties that may have been aroused by the current debate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Law and Ethics of Human Rights
Law and Ethics of Human Rights Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Crowdsourcing Compliance: The Use of WikiRate to Promote Corporate Supply Chain Transparency Frontmatter Crowdwashing Surveillance; Crowdsourcing Domination Illiberal Measures in Backsliding Democracies: Differences and Similarities between Recent Developments in Israel, Hungary, and Poland Frontmatter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1