The emphasis of this work ls on the common theme found in the three recent works of Stuart Hampshire (Morality and Conflict), Alasdair Macintyre (After Virtue) and Michael Walzer (Spheres of Justice). I call this theme "moral conservatism". While I believe that the "moral conservatives" are correct in their attempt to establish morality within society rather than in abstraction, their method of generating moral rules through social discourse seems to conflict with their own belief in certain vague notions of justice and equality. on close examination the method of the moral conservatives appears to be hermeneutic in that it involves the re-establishment of appeals to tradition and authority within the context of discourse. Given this hermeneutic element I have found that Habermas 's critique of hermeneutics can also be applied to their methodology. The result is a solution to the initial conflict. Habermas's analysis of universal pragmatics and the ideal speech situation provide a means of introducing constraints on the outcome of social discourse about norms. These constraints, because they are inherent in all social discourse, are universal. Nevertheless, they are not abstract in that they do not derive from an appeal to pure reason; rather, they are inherent in social discourse itself. This modification of the moral conservatives' approach indicates the possibility of combining the concreteness of historical relativism with a universal element usually found in a historical and indeed antihistorical ethical theories. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

Marriage and family research has its foundation in the positivist tradition, which dismisses the relevance of morality to the scientific enterprise. Yet morality is inherent in marriage and family studies—both in the topics studied and in methodology. In this conceptual research, positivist assumptions are explicated to show that positivist methodology relies on a stance of moral neutrality that turns out to be a hidden morality. This hidden morality requires that people be studied as other objects. The need for a methodology that has an explicit moral philosophy and that acknowledges that humans are not “things” is discussed. Levinas' relational philosophy of “being for the other” is shown to be one viable starting point for a methodology that takes the moral domain seriously. In contrast to methodologies that have their basis in positivism, this philosophy offers a coherent account of agency, a relational alternative to individualism, and an explicit moral stance intended to strengthen marriage and families. A method of evaluating research based on criteria of “being for the other” is outlined and used to evaluate three research articles to demonstrate how an explicit moral philosophy can strengthen the meaningfulness of empirical marriage and family research.

In this essay, I examine the interplay between history, progress, and morality, as it is discussed explicitly or implicitly in the metaethical literature. At first sight, it is perhaps intuitive that these three are necessarily intertwined and mutually dependent, as if they were casually connected. For instance, few would deny that moral progress has occurred throughout history. The abolishment of slavery and the political emancipation of certain groups are seen as obvious signs that morality does indeed progress. Those who believe in de facto moral progress would point to such 'facts' by comparing two states of affairs according to their moral status. Moral progress thus occurs when we move from a "worse" state of affairs to a "better". However, this simple algorithm becomes increasingly untenable once we ask what it means for something to be "better". Better by what measure, better according to whom, better in what sense? Some – moral realists– will argue that as we become increasingly aware of moral truths and as these truths steadily accumulate, progress occurs. Others will argue that there are no moral truths and no moral facts, and a comparison between different states of affairs is impossible because it involves a sort of moral 'historical imperialism' in which we assert our convictions and prejudices upon a time and culture with completely different beliefs. Taken to the extreme, this view gives rise to the idea that moral progress is nothing but a mirage, a psychological necessity without justification. I conclude the essay by arguing that several positions fall short when addressing questions regarding moral progress, and that there are other ways of discussing it which might be more fruitful.

No description available.

In Saudi Arabia women are legal minors who need permission from a male guardian in, among others, matters concerning education, employment and health care. Despite the obvious subordination of women in the country, Saudi Arabia has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, with a reservation saying that in cases of contradiction between the Convention and Islamic law they do not obligate themselves to follow the rules of the Convention. Respecting the culture, tradition and religion of non-western societies is important in the work with implementing international human rights. However, in the case of Saudi Arabia, it seems like the cultural and religious claims merely function as justification of an institutional oppression of women. This institutional practice of oppression is unique and taken to the extreme, but oppression of women in itself is a global phenomenon, which is not connected to a specific culture.

Female Genital Mutilation is a cultural and historical practice engrained in the African Culture.This practice is part of the African Rite of Passage; where a young girl passes on from being achild into being a grown woman. According to Martha Nussbaums’s Capability Approach thispractice undermines the woman and violates her rights as a human being, on the other handMelville Herskovits’ Cultural Relativist theory encourages acceptance and respect of the variouscultures and their beliefs; thus making female genital mutilation a cultural tradition that shouldbe respected like any other tradition around the world.

<p>In this thesis I deal with the issue of relativism that threatens Toulmin’s field- dependency thesis (i.e. the claim that the standards of argument appraisal depend on the argument field in which the argument occurs). After offering partial interpretation of the concept of “argument fields” and elucidating the concept of field-dependence, I argue that Toulmin’s field-dependency thesis does result in an unacceptably strong relativism.</p> / Master of Arts (MA)

This thesis interacts with the cultural values and societal expectations behind Japan’s overtime work ethic, and attempts to examine whether a universal human rights perspective can interact with the deeply rooted Japanese cultures and values. This is done with the help of previously conducted research and semi-structured interviews, which then allows for a better understanding of why overtime work is deeply rooted within Japanese culture, and why the application of human rights due diligence at the workplace is difficult to obtain. A qualitative study of semi-structured interviews has been conducted with 12 ethnic Japanese participants. The findings showed several connections between the participant’s answers, such as overtime work being an unwritten rule, and an expectation as a service to the society, to the previously conducted research. Although overtime work may change and differ in ratio depending on which company you are working for, it still is prevalent within Japanese society as a norm.Whether this is a human rights concern was debatable, since some participants argued it to be a vital part of the Japanese commitment to society, while other participants believed that it becomes problematic when personal choice and opinions are shunned or overlooked. These in turn result in other consequences such as depression, isolation, and even death. The thesis concludes that universal human rights values may not always go hand in hand with cultural values, but may allow new light to be shed on a contested phenomenon.

The notion of “convenance” has only recently attracted the attention of Montesquieu scholars, who have repeatedly stated its centrality to the author's thought, as well as a certain inherent ambiguity. This thesis firstly explores the history of the concept, starting from some existing studies that have laid the foundations for a research in this direction. In its Latin version (“convenientia”), the concept’s first philosophical appearance is due to Cicero, as a translation of certain notions from Stoic philosophy. The notion acquires then a non-secondary place in scholastic thought, finding application in different fields, from logic to theology and morality. In the Modern Age, the concept of “convenientia” becomes of great relevance in the moral and legal spheres: among others, Grotius, Pufendorf, Malebranche or Leibniz develop or rework differently the scholastic and stoic traditions where it was employed. Through these channels the notion of “convenientia” can reach the young author of the Persian Letters, who employs it in his ambiguous definition of justice as a “rapport de convenance” (letter 81). The study of the sources and the analysis of the major issues linked to this definition of justice singularly benefit from this retrospective look at the possible philosophical traditions where this notion of “convenance” is employed. On the basis of this examination of the texts, the thesis advanced is that the expression “rapport de convenance” denotes only the a priori or formal aspect of justice, which elsewhere the author designates as “rapport d’équité”. If “convenance” designates the universal and invariable aspect of justice, a study of its content, which is variable and relative, must lead to the various orders of law: natural, civil, political. The investigation thus crosses a second axis of relevance of the concept of “convenance” in Montesquieu’s work, namely the question of the relativity or “convenance” of laws to the people for whom they are established, on which the entire structure of the Spirit of Laws rests. This second (and very much Aristotelian) axis is the subject of a classification in the thesis. Human laws and institutions can be understood according to different planes of “convenance”: general, structural, local. Pivotal concepts in Montesquieu’s work, such as political freedom, moderation, “esprit général”, nature and principle of government, can then be understood in this articulation between “convenance à la société” in general and “convenance à chaque société” in particular, according to a structural or typological logic or according to a singular and local one. The scholastic usages inherited and reworked by the moderns include one that some french scholars have recently designated as the “argument de convenance”, i.e. the idea that God works in the simplest ways and always chooses the best. The thesis investigates the presence of this argument in Montesquieu, suggesting that the author conceives it above all as a principle of the “economy of nature”. Moreover, it is argued that this principle, while secularizing the traditional “argument de convenance”, acquires a fundamentally political significance: the art of legislation exiges to govern men by economising on violent means, that is, without doing violence to the natural inclinations of citizens and their freedom. In general, the study of Montesquieu’s thought through the lens of the notion of “convenance” allows one to better grasp the connection between the method of the art of legislation and the political and ideological objectives of his work, first and foremost the opposition to a despotic exercise of power.

This research regarding power/knowledge abuse within the church was conducted within the postmodern social construction discourse and in the context of narrative therapy, feminist theology and practical theology. It presents a chronicle of five individuals who experienced abuse within their congregations. It reflects on the co-authoring journey of these five individuals personally and within the context of the narrative group. As part of the narrative group they came to re-author their lives around what they had experienced regarding abuse within their churches. Together they challenged those dominant structures that are so often hidden just below `sacred' tradition. In conclusion the five individuals experienced a renaissance within themselves and their personal theology of God and His dealings within the church. This renaissance has led them to seek out others who have experienced this form of abuse and to give them the hope that they discovered together. / Practical Theology / M. Th. (Practical Theology - with specialisation in Pastoral Therapy)