堕胎争论背景下重叠共识的理论回顾

Mehmet Akif Doğan
{"title":"堕胎争论背景下重叠共识的理论回顾","authors":"Mehmet Akif Doğan","doi":"10.17550/akademikincelemeler.1141674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the beginning of the late modern era, modern constitutions have been trying to keep both group rights as minority rights and individual rights. But, in some cases, it is still ambiguous if an action must refer to individual rights or minority rights. Abortion discussions, with regard to political rights, is one of example of these ambiguous cases. In this context, whereas Liberal view tends to regard abortion as individual rights of a woman, Communitarian view can be against it by pointing out right to life and this case may lead to a kind of liberal constitutional crises. John Rawls’s theory of overlapping consensus in Political Liberalism tries to solve these political conflictions emerged in liberal constitutions by prioritizing public reason. This article conceptionally aims to examine Rawls’s theory with regard to abortion discussions. In order to extend the universe of the discussion, some important thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Isaiah Berlin and John Gray who have related studies on the topic were included. In conclusion, it is asserted that Rawl’s theory is weak both practically and theoretically as to the principle of utilitarianism violtes the rights of communitarians.","PeriodicalId":401248,"journal":{"name":"Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi (AID)","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theoretical Reviewing Of Overlapping Consensus In The Context Of Abortion Debate\",\"authors\":\"Mehmet Akif Doğan\",\"doi\":\"10.17550/akademikincelemeler.1141674\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the beginning of the late modern era, modern constitutions have been trying to keep both group rights as minority rights and individual rights. But, in some cases, it is still ambiguous if an action must refer to individual rights or minority rights. Abortion discussions, with regard to political rights, is one of example of these ambiguous cases. In this context, whereas Liberal view tends to regard abortion as individual rights of a woman, Communitarian view can be against it by pointing out right to life and this case may lead to a kind of liberal constitutional crises. John Rawls’s theory of overlapping consensus in Political Liberalism tries to solve these political conflictions emerged in liberal constitutions by prioritizing public reason. This article conceptionally aims to examine Rawls’s theory with regard to abortion discussions. In order to extend the universe of the discussion, some important thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Isaiah Berlin and John Gray who have related studies on the topic were included. In conclusion, it is asserted that Rawl’s theory is weak both practically and theoretically as to the principle of utilitarianism violtes the rights of communitarians.\",\"PeriodicalId\":401248,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi (AID)\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi (AID)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17550/akademikincelemeler.1141674\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi (AID)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17550/akademikincelemeler.1141674","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从近代晚期开始,现代宪法一直在努力维护作为少数人的群体权利和个人权利。但是,在某些情况下,如果一项诉讼必须涉及个人权利或少数人权利,则仍然是含糊不清的。关于政治权利的堕胎讨论就是这些模棱两可的案例之一。在这种情况下,自由主义的观点倾向于将堕胎视为女性的个人权利,而社群主义的观点可以通过指出生命权来反对堕胎,这种情况可能会导致一种自由主义的宪法危机。罗尔斯在《政治自由主义》中的重叠共识理论试图通过优先考虑公共理性来解决自由主义宪法中出现的这些政治冲突。本文从概念上考察罗尔斯关于堕胎讨论的理论。为了扩大讨论的范围,一些重要的思想家,如伊曼努尔·康德、以赛亚·伯林和约翰·格雷都对这一主题进行了相关的研究。总之,罗尔的理论在实践和理论上都是薄弱的,因为功利主义原则侵犯了社群主义者的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Theoretical Reviewing Of Overlapping Consensus In The Context Of Abortion Debate
Since the beginning of the late modern era, modern constitutions have been trying to keep both group rights as minority rights and individual rights. But, in some cases, it is still ambiguous if an action must refer to individual rights or minority rights. Abortion discussions, with regard to political rights, is one of example of these ambiguous cases. In this context, whereas Liberal view tends to regard abortion as individual rights of a woman, Communitarian view can be against it by pointing out right to life and this case may lead to a kind of liberal constitutional crises. John Rawls’s theory of overlapping consensus in Political Liberalism tries to solve these political conflictions emerged in liberal constitutions by prioritizing public reason. This article conceptionally aims to examine Rawls’s theory with regard to abortion discussions. In order to extend the universe of the discussion, some important thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Isaiah Berlin and John Gray who have related studies on the topic were included. In conclusion, it is asserted that Rawl’s theory is weak both practically and theoretically as to the principle of utilitarianism violtes the rights of communitarians.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信