Moralės ir politikos ribų problema: konservatyvus požiūris
LTŠio straipsnio tikslas - pristatyti pagrindines teorines moralės ir politikos santykio aiškinimo galimybes, panagrinėti šiandien vieną įtakingiausių Kanto-Rawlso koncepciją ir įvertinti konservatoriaus Michaelo Oakeshotto požiūrį šiuo klausimu. Visi šie autoriai kritikuojami už tam tikrą požiūrio siaurumą, Oakeshottui papildomai priekaištaujama ir dėl jo konservatizmo sampratos vienpusiškumo. [Iš straipsnio, p. 16]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Politika; Politinė filosofija; Immanuel Kant (Imanuelis Kantas); John Rawls; Michael Oakeshott; Moralė; Etika; Teisingumas; Konservatizmas; Liberalizmas; Valstybė; Politics; Political philosophy; Immanuel Kant; John Rawls; Michael Oakeshott; Morality; Ethics; Justice; Conservatism; Liberalism; State.
ENThe purpose of the article is to introduce the main theoretical perspectives of analysing the relationship between morality and politics, to investigate the concepts held by Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, as well as to evaluate the viewpoint advocated by the conservative Michael Oakeshott on the problem. All the above mentioned authors have been criticized for a certain narrow mindedness of their approach. Furthermore, Oakeshott has been additionally reproached for the one-sidedness of his concept. Oakeshott is in a somewhat ambiguous situation: as a liberal he loses to Rawls, who is far better at determining the political concept of liberalism, and as a conservative he wanders away from the tradition of political thought nurtured by Edmund Burke. Oakeshott is deprived of the conservative temperament which two centuries before enabled Burke to treat morality as the very centre of analysing the relationship between morality and politics. A slight shift of emphasis towards politics without a more substantial notion of morality makes Oakeshott more liberal rather than conservative. At times it is difficult to comprehend which tradition of moral thought is advocated by this author. The concept of moral tradition held by Burke two centuries before was far more coherent. [From the publication]
