Browsing by Subject "liberalism"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-15 of 15
  • Gel'man, Vladimir (Издательство Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге, 2019)
    препринты Центра исследований модернизации Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге
  • Virta, Ari (2007)
    The research topic of this thesis is late Milton Friedman's (1912-2006) controversial claim that if corporate officials accept a social responsibility other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible, they yield to a fundamentally subversive doctrine that amounts to preaching pure and unadulterated socialism and undermining the basis of the free society. Logically this claim means that capitalism is a necessary condition for the existence of the free society. The aim of my study is to find out whether and on what grounds Friedman's claim is justified. The method of my study is philosophical analysis of Friedman's claim and its background on one hand, and of capitalism and the role of private property therein on the other hand, to see whether the claim is justified. The main result of my study is that Friedman's claim is justified. The movement of Business Ethics opposing Friedman and the doctrine of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) it promotes seem indistinguishable from one version of socialism, i.e. European social democracy. The opposition between the views of Friedman and the Business Ethicists springs from different approaches to the importance of protecting private property, to the free society, to man’s cognitive capacities, and to the concept of freedom. On the bottom of the controversy is man's problematic relationship with wealth: even though he knows that wealth does not bring happiness, he searches it as if it did – and gets disappointed when it does not. Instead of recognising his own unreasonable expectations as the source of his disappointment he has a tendency to find the reason outside of himself and accuse other people for being malevolent. The main sources used are Milton Friedman's book "Capitalism and Freedom" and his essay "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits". The roots of Friedman's claim are in capitalism and liberalism. The main sources about capitalism are Adam Smith's books "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and "The Wealth of Nations", Ronald Coase's essays "Adam Smith's View of Man" and "The Wealth of Nations", Joseph Schumpeter's essays "Capitalism" and "Capitalism in the Postwar World", Mark Roe's book "Political Determinants of Corporate Governance" and Hernando de Soto's book "The Mystery of Capital". The main sources about liberalism are John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty" and Isaiah Berlin's essay "Two Concepts of Liberty".
  • Thorup, Mikkel (Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, 2013)
    COLLeGIUM: Studies across Disciplines in the Humanities and Social Sciences 14
    This article explores how state actors and ‘state philosophers’ from the latter part of the twentieth century until the present have described and reacted to what they perceive as militant challenges to the statist order. This is understood to be an antipolitical mode of argumentation because the critiques explicitly distance themselves from ordinary politics, portraying themselves as above or beyond normal politics. It is more specifically about critiques of liberal democracy for being unable to defend itself because it regards action as antithetical to talking. The article firstly outlines the core of the critique; then it turns to an empirical exploration of two different argumentative types of the critique illustrated through two different case examples: (1) securitized antipolitics: the neo-conservative argument for using force and the critique of those standing in the way of military solutions; and (2) moralized antipolitics: the idea that Islamism represents a new life threat to the West meriting a third world-war response and the critique of liberal appeasers supposedly not up to the challenge. The article concludes by summarizing the findings in the Slavoj Žižekian concept of ultrapolitics, where a militarization of politics is offered as real, hard politics but is actually a way to avoid the truly hard fact of politics: disagreement.
  • Palonen, Emilia (2021)
    Rise of populist politics in the 21s century calls scholars and politicians alike to reflect upon the question of how politics and democracy have been understood. Drawing on the theory of hegemony, this article establishes a distinction between democracy and 'demography' as a key line of conceptualization in politics. It highlights a central misunderstanding at the core of the demonization of populism: For radical democratic theory, 'the people' is not a demographic, socio-economic, or historically sedimented category tied to some characteristics, but a performative process of 'being' and 'becoming' 'the people' as a self-consciously enacted polity. This statement challenges the taken-for-granted status of subjectivities of political struggle and links this approach to other contemporary discussions of politics, democracy, and populism. After discussing how anti, neo and post-foundational theoretical accounts on populism reveal a dimension of politics and representation, this article emphasizes action and performativity over static categories and models characteristic of political realism and political system approaches.
  • Mansikkaniemi, Mikaela (2002)
    Avhandlingens syfte har varit att med hjälp av den valda teoretiska referensramen, som baserar sig på debatten mellan den internationella politikens två "stora teorier", rama in den finländska flykting-politiken i brytningsskedet mellan kalla kriget och dess slut. Huvudfrågan är: Har den finländska flyktingpolitiken gått i en liberalare riktning under 1990-talet, såsom kunde förväntas då de mänskliga rättigheterna i övrigt under denna tid har vuxit i betydelse i Finlands utrikespolitik? Med den finländska flyktingpolitiken förstås i arbetet politiken i form av de ställningstaganden som getts angående flyktingarna under ifrågavarande period. Ställningstagandena avslöjar de förklaringar/ argument som använts för den förda politiken. Ställningstagandena har tagits huvudsakligen från verket Ulkopoliittisia lausuntoja ja asiakirjoja, åren 1990-1999. Som bakgrund till ställnings-tagandenas retorik presenteras den förverkligade politiken, d.v.s. de mottagna flyktingarna och de finansiella bidrag som getts för flyktingrelaterade ändamål. Arbetets metod är alltså en politisk argumentationsanalys. Liberalismen-realismen debatten belyser i detta fall framför allt flyktingproblematiken som en fråga som står i korsdraget mellan de nationella och internationella influenserna samt mellan de liberala humanitära och nationella/nationalistiska målsättningarna i politiken. Utgående från den teoretiska referensramen antog jag hypotetiskt att 1990-talets förändringsprocesser för Finlands del haft som följd för flyktingpolitiken, att den liberaliserats samt att förklaringarna till den förda politiken gått från hänvisandet till internationella "externa faktorer" (att mottagandet av flyktingar var en fientlig handling mot Sovjetunionen samtidigt som Finland har förpliktelser som följer av undertecknandet av konventioner rörande de mänskliga rättigheterna) till nationella "interna faktorer" (ekonomiskt och etniskt nationalistiska argument samt hänvisande till den liberala politiska traditionen). Undersökningens resultat visar att den förverkligade flyktingpolitiken (mottagna flyktingar och finansiella bidrag) stått så gott som stilla, den har inte liberaliserats. Däremot har argumenten och förklaringarna till politiken delvis förändrats. Argumenten till politiken hänvisar fortfarande till internationella faktorer som de främsta påverkarna av Finlands flyktingpolitik. Enligt argumenteringarna begränsar diverse "yttre faktorer" fortsättningsvis Finlands valmöjligheter att föra en självständig flyktingpolitik (i slutet av 1990-talet framför allt EU-samarbetet). Till nationella faktorer hänvisas ungefär lika ofta i slutet av perioden som i dess början (främst ekonomiska faktorer respektive hänvisningar till Finlands liberala politiska tradition).
  • Hakulinen, Juuli (Helsingin yliopisto, 2021)
    Tässä tutkielmassa tarkastellaan Euroopan unionin muuttoliikepolitiikan koordinaatiota kahden tapaustutkimuksen avulla. Empiirinen osuus koskee vuonna 2018 hyväksyttyä YK:n siirtolaissopimusta (Global Compact for Migration) ja sen hyväksymiseen johtaneita neuvotteluja Itävallan ja Suomen näkökulmista. Teeman tutkiminen on tärkeää, koska muuttoliikepolitiikka kasvattaa jatkuvasti merkitystään. Vuonna 2015 ”muuttoliikekriisi” koetteli Eurooppaa, minkä seurauksena viimeistään EU-maat ja koko unionin yhdessä alkoi kiinnittää huomiota muuttoliikepolitiikan koordinointiin myös ylikansallisesti. Tutkielmassa kysytään ensiksikin, millainen oli prosessi Euroopassa, joka johti sopimuksen syntyyn; toiseksi, miten valittu teoria toimii sen selittäjänä; kolmanneksi, miten teorian selitysvoimaa voisi parantaa. Teoreettisena viitekehyksenä toimii Andrew Moravcsikin kehittämä EU:n integraatioteoria, liberaali hallitustenvälisyys. Teorian keskeinen väite on se, että valtioiden preferenssit määrittävät sopimusten lopputulokset ja preferenssit muodostuvat äänestäjien painostuksen vuoksi. Menetelmänä tutkielmassa käytetään prosessin jäljittämistä, jolla sekä kuvataan narratiivi siirtolaissopimuksen neuvotteluista, testataan teoriaa että etsitään tapoja parantaa teorian toimivuutta. Tutkielmassa päädytään tulokseen, että sopimuksen neuvotteluprosessi aiheutti merkittävää hajaannusta EU:ssa. Euroopassa kiersi sopimuksesta runsaasti väärää tietoa, mikä saattoi vaikuttaa sen vastaanottoon. EU:n oli ollut tarkoitus yhtenä rintamana hyväksyä sopimus, mutta niin ei käynyt, mikä oli Euroopalle arvovaltatappio. Tutkituista tapauksista Itävalta irtautui neuvotteluprosessista kalkkiviivoilla, kun taas Suomi sitoutui sopimukseen painostuksesta huolimatta. Molemmissa maissa oikeistopopulistiset puolueet vastustivat sopimusta. Analyysin perusteella liberaali hallitustenvälisyys vaikuttaa toimivan selittäjänä, mutta epätäydellisesti. Suurimmat ongelmat ovat preferenssien muodostumisessa. Analyysin perusteella ei ole myöskään lainkaan selvää, toimiko neuvottelujen hyötyjen jakautuminen niin kuin LI ennustaisi. Tukea teorialle tulee siitä, että analyysin perusteella valtiot todella ovat tärkeimmät toimijat kansainvälisissä neuvotteluissa ja että poliittisesti herkissä aiheissa valtiot eivät luovuta suvereniteettiaan pois kuin minimaalisesti. Koska vaikuttaa siltä, että teorian preferenssien muodostumista koskeva kohta ei toimi tutkitun laisissa tapauksissa, tulisi teorian parantamiseksi tarkentaa missä tapauksissa äänestäjien painostus ei määrää kansallisia kantoja. Vastausta voisi lähteä tutkimaan esimerkiksi suunnasta, jossa arvoille ja normeille annetaan suurempi painoarvo kansainvälisessä politiikassa.
  • Martin, Jonathon (2007)
    This thesis examines the concept of political liberty (or freedom – the two terms are used as synonyms). In the first chapter I deal with the necessary and sufficient conditions for an agent to be considered free or unfree. This is an opinionated overview that lays the ground for the following sections but which does not reach firm conclusions. The second chapter deals with the value of liberty and asks in what way and to what extent liberty can be considered valuable. I conclude that liberty can be held to be valuable both instrumentally and constitutively but that not all freedoms are therefore equally valuable. In the final chapter I consider the measurement of freedom and conclude that epistemically, it may be possible to measure freedom in an overall sense. In practice, however, it is not possible at the current time nor for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, I argue that a non-evaluative measurement of freedom will lead to very counter-intuitive results. The second and third chapters of this thesis owe a special debt to two recent books on liberty that have, in my view, taken the debate to a higher level. The first is “A Measure of Freedom” by Ian Carter and the second is “The Quality of Freedom” by Matthew Kramer.
  • Hästbacka, Hannu (Helsingin yliopisto, 2018)
    Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) on yksi keskeisimmistä modernin libertarismin taustalla olevista ajattelijoista. Rothbard pitää yksilöllistä vapautta keskeisimpänä periaatteenaan, ja yhdistää filosofiassaan klassisen liberalismin perinnettä itävaltalaiseen taloustieteeseen, teleologiseen luonnonoikeusajatteluun sekä individualistiseen anarkismiin. Hänen tavoitteenaan on kehittää puhtaaseen järkeen pohjautuva oikeusoppi, jonka pohjalta voidaan perustaa vapaiden markkinoiden ihanneyhteiskunta. Valtiota ei täten Rothbardin ihanneyhteiskunnassa ole, vaan vastuu yksilöllisten luonnonoikeuksien toteutumisesta on kokonaan yksilöllä itsellään. Tutkin työssäni vapauden käsitettä Rothbardin anarko-kapitalistisessa filosofiassa. Selvitän ja analysoin Rothbardin ajattelun keskeisimpiä elementtejä niiden filosofisissa, ideologisissa, poliittisissa ja henkilöhistoriallisissa konteksteissaan. Käytän näiden elementtien arviointiin sekä historiatieteen että filosofian lähestymistapaa. Tässä mielessä työni edustaa sekä aate- että filosofian historiaa. Hyödynnän tutkimuksessani Isaiah Berlinin negatiivisen ja positiivisen vapauden teoriaa (1958). Nojaudun vapauden käsitteen analysoinnissa klassisen liberalismin traditioon, jota työssäni keskeisimmin edustaa Berlinin lisäksi John Stuart Millin filosofia (1859). Tähän viitekehykseen tukeutuen esitän, ettei Rothbardin vapauden teoria edusta liberalistista ajattelua, vaan on selkeästi tämän tradition ulkopuolella niin metaeettisen teoriansa, yhteiskunnallisten arvojensa kuin perimmäisen vapauskäsityksensäkin puolesta. Vapauden käsitteellä on Rothbardin filosofiassa kaksi toisistaan erottuvaa merkitystä. Rothbard viittaa vapauden termillä useimmiten praxeologisen taloustieteen logiikkaan perustuvaan, välinearvolliseen ”moraalitieteeseen” ja tämän pohjalta johdettuun vapauden objektiiviseen määritelmään luonnollisena tosiasiana. Toisaalta hän viittaa termillä myös normatiiviseen, itseisarvolliseen poliittiseen ihanteeseen. Tutkimustavoitteenani on selvittää, miten nämä kaksi merkitystä lopulta yhdistyvät Rothbardin ajattelussa toisiinsa. Teen täten ymmärrettäväksi, mitä vapaus lopulta tarkoittaa Rothbardin filosofiassa. Primäärilähteinäni on Rothbardin kirjallinen tuotanto vuosilta 1960–1982. Hänen poliittisen filosofiansa kannalta keskeisimmät teokset ovat ”Ethics of Liberty” (1982) sekä ”For a New Liberty” (1973). Tukeudun tutkimuksessani myös Rothbardista tehtyihin elämäkerrallisiin selvityksiin, joita ovat kirjoittaneet Rothbardin lähipiiriin ja kannattajakuntaan kuuluneet akateemikot. Tutkimustulosteni pohjalta väitän, ettei anarko-kapitalismi ole luonnollisiin tosiasioihin ja puhtaaseen järkeen pohjautuva eettinen systeemi, vaan pohjimmiltaan uskonnollisen moraalin päälle rakentuva vapaiden markkinoiden ideologia, jossa vapauden välinearvollinen määritelmä yhdistyy vapauden poliittiseen ihanteeseen lopulta vain sen olettamuksen kautta, että olemme epävapaita valtion takia.
  • Luoto, Minna (Helsingin yliopisto, 2016)
    The question of essential capacity provided the backgrounds for this study. What can real capacity mean in contemporary society characterized by the crisis of ethics. The aim of the study was searching for moral intelligence – to discuss morality in relation to intelligence. A further aim was to understand certain changes related to both of these conceptions, which was supposed to open some possibilities to reflect on moral intelligence. The view of the study was eclectic and multiscientific. Morality was represented through the views of Z. Bauman's Postmodern Ethics (1993) and S. Hellsten's In defence of Moral Individualism (1997). The synthesized concept was the possible current morality. Intelligence was more closely understood as emotional intelligence in D. Goleman's Emotional Intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. The method of the study was constructed to meet the needs of the aims. The method applied was philosophical approach, which included systematic analysis. The argumentation was summarized in six theses. Theses five and six discuss the special justification of moral intelligence from two directions: moral (I part) and intelligence (II part). The questions were: 1.1 What is the meaning of individual moral capacity in Bauman's postmodern ethics? 1.2 What is the meaning of individual moral capacity in Hellsten's moral individualism? And 2 What is the meaning of emotions concerned with decision making and sensible behaviour in Goleman's emotional intelligence? From the perspective of postmodern ethics, individual moral capacity was proved to be central, since it actually is the basis of the morality found in responsibility. From the perspective of the moral individualism, individual moral capacity was proved to be central to society, since its existence and development are connected with liberal democracy and its legitimation. Both of these views on the possible current morality emphasized that human moral capacity is not only rational but consists of emotions and moral impulses, too. From the perspective of the emotional intelligence, emotions were proved to be part of every human action, which thus questions pure rational intelligence. Since the concept of intelligence expresses individual sensible behaviour, the moral based on responsibility and the central meaning of individual moral capacity were considered to be the justification for regarding individual essential capacity as moral capacity too. Since moral was proved to be linked to individual capacity rather than universal rules, it was presented that moral has in this sense come closer to intelligence. Correspondingly, since intelligence as emotional intelligence expressed the change in understanding rational and irrational elements, and since it can, in a certain way, be a conceptual link between moral and intelligence, it was interpreted that, in this way, intelligence approaches the concept of moral. Essential capacity was summarized as sensible bahaviour, in which moral responsibility is realised and which consists of an impact of both reason and emotion. This study clarifies the argument that essential capacity is, in addition to intelligence and its implementation with emotional intelligence, actually individual moral intelligence and its fulfillment. Thus, in a changing information-society, education meets again one of its original challenges – the difficult task of moral education.
  • Hyyrynen (Isopoussu), Milla-Maria (Helsingin yliopisto, 2011)
    In my Master's thesis I discuss a relatively new topic in the discussion on multiculturalism in political philosophy, the right of exit from a religious or a cultural group. Liberal theorists agree on the fact that everyone should be free to leave their group, to have a right to exit. However, they disagree on the content of the right. I present two schools on the topic: the formal right of exit strategy by Chandran Kukathas and the realistic right of exit strategy by Susan Moller Okin. I also view the importance of the individual's right to voice. I try to answer to a question which is twofold: whether the formal right of exit strategy is enough for protecting the freedom of individuals belonging to groups or whether the real abilities to exit should be considered as well, and whether everyone should also have a right to voice. In my work I compare the view of Kukathas with that of Okin. My main sources are Kukathas's book, The Liberal Archipelago. A Theory of Diversity and Freedom (2003) and Okin's article Mistresses of Their Own Destiny? Group Rights, Gender, and Realistic Right of Exit (2002). I also discuss what is often pictured as an alternative or supplement to exit, namely voice. By it is meant the right of the dissenters in the groups to express their views and try to reform their groups accordingly. Regarding to voice, my main source is a book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970) by Albert O. Hirschman. I also cover minors and exit, as well as the so called costs of exit and voice. I show that whereas Okin thinks everyone should have certain capacities to exit, Kukathas objects it is irrelevant to consider them. Okin claims girls and women often lack these capacities. She argues they are for this reason not substantively free to leave their groups, nor in an equal position with men to exercise the right of exit. Therefore the formal right of exit strategy should be rejected. I claim that the debate between Kukathas and Okin comes back to a broader one in liberalism, namely on the question of which is the fundamental value in liberalism: toleration or autonomy. Kukathas stresses the former, Okin the latter. I come to the conclusion that in order to protect the freedom of all, the formal right of exit strategy should be abandoned in favor of the realistic right of exit strategy. Regarding to voice, along the right of exit, everyone should also have a right to voice.
  • Strang, Johan (2009)
    In the 1930s and 40s many theories were raised about some kind of connection between relativistic or nihilistic moral theories and the rise of totalitarianism in Europe. In Scandinavia these allegations were directed at the adherents of the value nihilistic theory of Axel Hägerström. This article explores the ways in which three democratically-minded followers of Hägerström (Ingemar Hedenius, Herbert Tingsten and Alf Ross) struggled to overcome these charges and to reconcile their democratic convictions with Hägerström’s value nihilistic theory.
  • Reyes, Kirsi L. (2004)
    Much discussion has been introduced about where the role of American foreign policy and ideological thinking will fit in the realm of the international domain in the 21st century. Since the end of the Cold War, the concrete notion of an enemy is no longer there and the realist thought that dominated American foreign policy for some forty years is now seemingly giving way to liberalist ideology. Critics have therefore described the end of the Cold War as the triumph of democratic liberalist ideas. However, the end of the Cold War is not a viable reason to assume that realist thinking then is completely replaced by liberalist thinking. Subscribing to accept one sole theory to explain, “why states act they way they do” is not a conducive means for the current study of international relations. Thus, the thesis examines the argument of a blend of realist and liberalist elements in foreign policymaking by highlighting the key merits of realism and liberalism and examining the formulation of American foreign policy and foreign policy in general. To further support the blend of realist and liberalist elements is a brief investigation of U.S. foreign policy before the 1990’s and afterwards to demonstrate that although the Clinton administration initiated liberal programs, realist motives for liberalist ideals are prominent in Clinton’s policies directed towards the Baltic States. The Joint Baltic American National Committee and the Northern Europe Initiative policy further solidify this notion of realist motives for liberalist ideals.
  • Frerichs, Sabine (2010)
    In modern society, the law contributes as much to individualization (subjectivation) as to social integration (cohesion). In this paper, these relations are explored with regard to the role of the legal subject in the market society. In a market society, the markets are no longer “embedded” in the normative order of society but society has itself adopted the logic of markets. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s Rio lectures and his governmentality lectures, I will show that within the modern ‘governmental state’ – understood both as a ‘state of law’ (Rechtsstaat) and an ‘economic state’ (Wirtschaftsstaat) – the law moves between the poles of (juridical) justice and (economic) truth. The economization of the rule of law is paralleled by an economization of the legal subject, which corresponds to a shift from the principle of jurisdiction (speaking the law) to the principle of veridiction (speaking the truth). This means nothing else than the scientization of classical notions of the law according to the criteria of modern economics. The legal subject is thus brought in line with the market citizen who – as an entity of both governance and self-governance – fits well into the market society. However, his self-concept is not only affected by the liberalization but, at the same time, also by the naturalization of the rules that the market has imported into the law.