Suchergebnisse

The appearance in 1976 of Admiral Gorshkov's book Sea Power of the State revived the question of whether the views of the Soviet Commander in Chief were a statement of doctrine or not. At the time of the publication of the Gorshkov series of articles in 1972-3, many Western commentators, relying heavily on their "feel" for the authoritativeness with which Gorshkov wrote, concluded that the series was part of a factional debate. Later, these same commentators argued that the book was a doctrinal confirmation of the views expressed in the series. The issue is not merely semantic, In Soviet military literature, doctrine holds a unique place. Military doctrine is at the apex of all military thinking and writing.

What is the Supreme Court's relationship with public opinion? Barry Friedman's answer in The Will of the People scours some 200 years of history to provide a distinctly political view of the Court, and the story he tells is compelling. Yet it is also incomplete. The Will of the People presents a largely external account of the law; it sees the influence of majority will as a force that moves outside the jurisprudence we lawyers spend so much of our time researching, writing, and talking about. By this account, there is what the Justices say is driving their decisionmaking-legal doctrine-and then what, consciously or subconsciously, is really going on. As Friedman has explained elsewhere, "The Justices don't tend to give speeches much less write opinions saying 'we are following public opinion." Or do they? In this symposium contribution, I contend that Friedman is right; Supreme Court decisionmaking is inextricably bound to majority will. But he is more right than he knows, or at least more right than The Will of the People shows. In his focus on an extralegal account of Supreme Court decisionmaking, Friedman misses the best evidence yet of the Court's majoritarian leanings: its widespread use of explicitly majoritarian doctrine. Sometimes-not all the time or even most of the time, but sometimes-the influence of majority will is so strong that it seeps into the legal framework for deciding questions of constitutional law. On these occasions, the Justices do write opinions that say "we are following majority will." By and large, the phenomenon simply has gone unnoticed.

Utilitarianism as an innovative and original stream of ethical and political thought has enriched the philosophical discourse of the last three centuries. Utilitarian thinkers claim that maximization of pleasure correlated with minimization of pain is the correct way to create an objective catalog of rules or behaviors that result in the formation of the highest utility for a society and its individuals. From a methodological perspective, there are differences among the utilitarian philosophers on issues such as: happiness, pleasure or utility guide to diametrical disaccord on an ethical or institutional area. The present analysis of the utilitarian thought represents some of the interesting differences in interpretation of this doctrine. However, utilitarianism does not include logical or intellectually strong arguments for the protection of an individual's rights against the interest of people at large. Thus, this doctrine during the 18th and the 19th centuries postulated the political egalitarianism. Nowadays, utilitarianism has lost its strong ethical position. In the past, utilitarianism was a political instrument to protect most of the people in a society from an arbitrary reigning of small elite groups. In recent times, this thought legitimizes the coercion of the majority will regardless of the fact that other smaller groups may have different political views. Such thinking allows to objectify the individual man which is only identified with instrumentality to maximization of utility. The author analyzes the writings of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer, and compares their doctrines with the scientific literature and forwards a basic thesis on the universal principles of utilitarianism. The author argues that the actual rules of political ethics under conditions of limitation theory of utility append the law of inviolability of the natural rights of an individual. ; Publication of English-language versions of the volumes of the "Annales. Ethics in Economic Life" financed through contract no. 501/1/P-DUN/2017 from the funds of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education devoted to the promotion of scholarship.

Utilitarianism as an innovative and original stream of ethical and political thought has enriched the philosophical discourse of the last three centuries. Utilitarian thinkers claim that maximization of pleasure correlated with minimization of pain is the correct way to create an objective catalog of rules or behaviors that result in the formation of the highest utility for a society and its individuals. From a methodological perspective, there are differences among the utilitarian philosophers on issues such as: happiness, pleasure or utility guide to diametrical disaccord on an ethical or institutional area. The present analysis of the utilitarian thought represents some of the interesting differences in interpretation of this doctrine. However, utilitarianism does not include logical or intellectually strong arguments for the protection of an individual's rights against the interest of people at large. Thus, this doctrine during the 18th and the 19th centuries postulated the political egalitarianism. Nowadays, utilitarianism has lost its strong ethical position. In the past, utilitarianism was a political instrument to protect most of the people in a society from an arbitrary reigning of small elite groups. In recent times, this thought legitimizes the coercion of the majority will regardless of the fact that other smaller groups may have different political views. Such thinking allows to objectify the individual man which is only identified with instrumentality to maximization of utility. The author analyzes the writings of Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer, and compares their doctrines with the scientific literature and forwards a basic thesis on the universal principles of utilitarianism. The author argues that the actual rules of political ethics under conditions of limitation theory of utility append the law of inviolability of the natural rights of an individual.