http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 염수균(Su-Kyun Youm) (검색결과 6 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
염수균(Su Kyun Youm) 철학연구회 2010 哲學硏究 Vol.0 No.91
While integrity is regarded as a personal virtue required for politicians or public servants, it seldom means political virtue which political community is required to have. Ronald Dworkin applies the idea of integrity to the state, and maintains that the integrity is a cardinal political virtue. Dworkin maintains that just as the consistency of actions and the coherence among commitments are required for individuals, the consistency in the principles which are embedded in the decisions of the state is required for the state, and that just as the former is called integrity, the latter can be called integrity. Though authenticity which is a main feature of personal integrity has value in itself and personal integrity owes its morality to the feature of moral courage, political integrity lacks those features. Unlike personal integrity, in addition, political integrity may dictate the action which conflicts with the action the state judges to be unjust. So it is possible to say that he has unfair rhetorical advantage by insisting on the similarity between personal integrity and his political integrity. Dworkin thinks that the community which has political integrity would show equal concern for all members. If the political integrity is a political virtue, it owes it``s morality to equal concern. But Dworkin`s statement that political integrity implies equal concern is not based on cogent arguments.
-
염수균 ( Su Kyun Youm ) 법과사회이론학회 2013 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.45
The aims the state can pursue are common good, general good and individual rights. The aims other than individual rights can be pursued on the condition that it does not violate the rights. Liberals` ethical neutrality thesis does not require the state not to engage in the problems of good life completely. It dose not require the neutrality in consequence and the neutral position in regard to ethical values accepted by all. It permits the state to support some cultural activities and to restrict irrational or unjust ways of life. The ground of the ethical neutrality is very weak. For we cannot deny the possibility that a majority view of good life appears in liberal democratic society. If we do not interpret the individual right to freedom of conscience as including the right that the state should not have established religion or the official view on the good life, the majority conception of good life can be promoted without violating the right. Therefore, the ethical neutrality thesis can be maintained only in the society where there is no majority conception of good life or on the basis of strong interpretation of the right to freedom of conscience which requires the state not to have the official view of good life.
-
염수균(Youm, Su-Kyun) 새한철학회 2013 哲學論叢 Vol.74 No.4
롤스가 행위에 적용하는 자유 개념과 인간과 사회에 적용하는 자유 개념은 다르다. 그는 어떤 행위에 대한 자유가 존재한다는 것은 그 행위를 하는 것을 다른 사람이나 국가가 방해하지 않고 그에 대한 기회가 보장된다는 것으로 해석한다. 그렇지만 자유에 대한 그의 입장이 소극적 자유론이라고 말할 수는 없다. 그러한 자유 자체에 정치적 가치를 부여하지 않았기 때문이다. 롤스가 인간의 자유에 적용하는 자유 개념은 이성의 도덕적 능력에 기초한 칸트적 자유개념이다. 그는 자신의 이성의 도덕적 판단에 따라 행위할 수 있는 사람을 자유인으로 보았다. 자유로운 사회는 사람들의 도덕적 능력을 발전시키고 그 능력이 발휘될 수 있는 여건을 만드는 기본적 자유들을 평등하게 보장하는 사회이다. 어떤 사람이 한 사회에서 정치적으로 자율적으로 살아갈 때만 그 사람이 자유로울 수 있다고 생각하지 않았다는 점에서 롤스의 자유 개념은 고전적 공화주의의 자기입법으로서의 자유 개념과 다르다. 또한 개인의 도덕적 능력과 사회가 보장하는 그 행위의 범위에 의해서 개인의 자유가 정해진다는 점에서 롤스의 자유는 구성원들 사이의 평등한 관계에서 자유가 정해지는 패팃의 비지배 자유와도 다르다. The concept of liberty which Rawls applies to action is different from that which he applies to person and society. He thinks that there is a liberty of an action, if the action is not restricted by other persons or state. But Rawls’ view on the liberty can not be said to negative one. For he does not attribute the political value to the liberty itself he applies to action. The concept of liberty Rawls applies to person is Kantian one which is based on reason’s moral capacity. He thinks free person is one who can act according to the judgements of his own reason. Free society is one in which the basic liberties are equally guaranteed. The liberties are held to develop the moral capacity and make circumstance for its displaying. The Rawls’ concept of liberty is different from the republican liberty as self-legislation in that he does not think political autonomy as the essence of the personal liberty. It is also different from Pettit’s non-domination concept of liberty in that while the Rawls’ liberty is determined by personal moral capacity and social circumstance in which it can be displayed, the Pettit’s liberty is determined by the equality between citizens.
-
-
염수균 ( Su Kyun Youm ) 법과사회이론학회 2012 법과 사회 Vol.0 No.43
Fuller thinks that his eight principles of legality are needed for any legal system to be legal. That those principles exist and they are constitutive principles of the rule of law is accepted by almost legal philosophers. The problem is the morality of those principles. Fuller calls their morality internal morality of law. The internal morality is the morality of the action by which legal rules are enacted and applied, while the external morality is the morality of the rules themselves. Because the principles are not just efficient principles but ones by observance of which the action can be moral, the principles can be called moral principles and the concept of internal morality is sustained. Fuller claims that principles of legality affect positively the morality of the laws which are enacted according to the principles. The claim presupposes that the legislators consciously respect the moral principles which are contained in the principles of legality and enact laws according to the moral principles. But the presupposition is not so evident that they need no justification. And even if they enacted the laws according to the moral motives, the laws would not necessarily become moral. For the most unjust rules were enacted by the idealists rather than wicked governors. Therefore the claim that the internal morality of law affect positively the external morality of law lacks proper foundation. But the whole system of the law can be morally affected through the governor`s observance of the principles The definition of the wicked regime which the debate between Kramer and Simmonds presupposes cannot be accepted. Because the wicked regime must be defined not in terms of wickedness of governors` motive but that of laws they enacted.
KCI
DBpia연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
