Proceedings of the XXII World Congress of Philosophy

The global principles must be the response to the globalizing world. If it is a global selfishness, the humanity will collapse. That is why; the global elfishness should be opposed by the common to all humanity sacral values or the lanetary ethics. Planetary ethics is the whole complex of interconnected principles, ideas and sets, - the complex that ought to be brought to a working system, - dynamic and strict. All these ideals and principles flows from the common to all humanity moral values, fixed in the best philosophical works of the various states and peoples, in the religious confessions with заветами of love, mercy, moral purity,striving to the living in the harmony with nature and with self. The traditional values of the Turkic world call for it. To the very principles of the planetary ethics should be attributed the following:• Tolerance;• Peaceful and the constructive dialogue of cultures, civilizations and religions;• Education for all, education should be with the priority of воспитание over study of any kind of knowledge and professional skills;• Ecological imperatives of humanity’s culture.The principles of integral ethics should accepted by everyone and anybody: the states’ leaders, international organizations, civil structures and by individuals

The so-called Brundtland-Report defines Sustainable Development as a conception of intra- and intergenerational justice, which is to be realized by a globally just distribution of possibilities for satisfying human basic needs as well as assuring such possibilities for future generations. Hence, any political and/orsocietal decision is addressed by the ethical demands of Sustainable Development insofar it affects possibilities for satisfying human basic needs. In particular, this concerns – contrary to the widespread opinion that Sustainable Development only has to deal with problems of environmental ethics – the legitimization of biomedical applications. After all, especially such decisions often face the problem of measuring and trading‐off potential advantages and disadvantages regarding possibilities for satisfying human basic needs. Based on the example of decisions about establishing biobanks, my talk firstly will show that Sustainable Development actually demands much more from political and societal decisions than just being concerned about environmental ethics. Secondly, it will clarify these demands in detail. Thirdly, it will address the issues of how these demands can be implemented adequately. My talk therefore will show which conditions political and/or societal decision processes have to meet in order to comply with Sustainable Development.

The paper discusses a neglected condition for justified self-defense, namely, 'The Success Condition [SC].' According to SC, otherwise immoral acts can be justified under the right to self-defense only if they actually achieve the intended defense from the perceived threat. If they don't, they are almost always excused, but not morally justified. I show that SC leads to a troubling puzzle because victims who estimate they cannot prevent the attack against them would be morally required to surrender. I try to solve the puzzle by relying on what I call 'The Honor Solution.' Even if defensive acts fail to protect the victim's body, property, or life, they are successful in protecting her honor, thus they do ultimately meet the success condition.

Aristotle’s and Plato’s doctrine has been used by Christian thinkers in the defense of and explanation of the faith. The end of the 20th century and the beginnings of this century have been marked by an unprecedented attack on the family as a natural institution, that is, it has an unchanging essence that does not change with time. The family as a natural institution is based on a monogamous relationship of a man and a woman with a clear function to serve the individual members of this institution and the society. Proponents of other family forms rally on the contrary, could the Stagirite corpus doctrinae specifically those he enunciated in his work The Politics and Nicomachean Ethics shed light on contemporary issues and provide satisfactory ammunition for Christians? The paper will develop in three parts: first, an exposition of the Stagirite doctrine; second, an overview of the problems and threats to the traditional family and finally an evaluation of the doctrine.

The most important moral question concerned with the problem of political obligation relates to the limits of obedience of a citizen owed to the state. The problem of political obligation raises the questions such as – (1) To what extent the citizen has an obligation to obey the laws of the state? (2) Is the citizen of a state, whether democratic or otherwise, under an obligation to obey the unjust laws of the state? There are two different viewpoints concerning the character of obligation to obey the laws of the State. (1) The first position states -- “one has an absolute obligation to obey the law and therefore disobedience to the state law is never justified”. (2) The second position asserts -- “one has a prima facie obligation to obey the law, but this obligation can be overridden by conflictingobligations. Hence disobedience to the state law can be justified in the presence of outweighing circumstances”.

The advancement in the field of medical science and technology has made the issue of euthanasia more relevant and important for the present day society to discuss. Life saving machines and drugs are helping the patients who become incapable of leading their lives independently and to live artificially with thehelp of these life prolonging machines and medicines. But today it is possible to prolong their life, which may be full of pain and suffering. This suffering of the 'person' forces us to think as to how far we are morally justified to help such patients to go on living a useless, helpless and painful life. Isn't it obligatory on us to relieve them of their pain? Such issues have made the concept of ‘euthanasia’, which involves 'good death', an important one. One should take a utilitarianpoint of view in analyzing the concept of euthanasia. One should keep the interests and benefit of people in mind. When one decides that a particular case is a case of euthanasia, then not only the 'net benefit' of the patient should be borne in mind, but also the 'general benefit of the society and individuals looking after the patient should be taken into consideration.

This paper intends to highlight the philosophical and ethical implications of cultural theory as initiated in the seventies by the British anthropologist, Mary Douglas. The first part will present cultural theory, mainly through her early works. We will particularly insist on the originality of this functionalist theory based on four interpersonal relationships patterns – defined according to grid and group dimensions – and their associated cultural biases, namely the egalitarian bias, the hierarchical, the insulated and the individualist one. In the second part of our study, we will show that in each of these biases, people behave and perceive differently and we will concentrate on these differences regarding risk. Finally, we will focus on one essential implication of this theory, its conception of rationality. Indeed, cultural theory implies a framework of plural rationalities, which is of paramount importance if we consider its ethical consequences. We will try to lighten these and show how it might influence risk management.

Ehrenmord ist eine nicht selten vorkommende Tat in der Turkei. Mit fortgesetzter Wanderung in die großen Städte der Türkei und ins Ausland, wird dieses Phänomen auch in andere Regionen getragen. Daher setzt sich auch die Öffentlichkeit in zunehmenden Maße mit dieser Thematik auseinander. In diesem Artikel wird versucht, den Ehrenmord unter philosophischen Gesichtspunkten zu erklären.Hierzu werden Gedanken Engels, Butlers, Foucaults, Levi Strauss’ und auch weitere bedeutende Forschungsarbeiten zum Thema Selbstmord hinzugezogen.

The latest philosophy of P. Ricoeur offers us the opportunity to articulate an ethic applied responsive to the challenges of our time. This proposal is basically collected in his book The fair 2, a compilation of work and consolidating core issues of practical philosophy. Part of an original sense of justice where "the rightthing" does not arise as a name or abstract category, but as a sustantivated adjective. This is not an abstract value but a value whose scope, accuracy and meaning depends on its realization in the unity of human life. Retrieving the original sense already appeared in the Socratic dialogues of Plato, as just described, defines and conducts the practice of justice. This analysis is productive in applied ethics because it raises the "implementation" of an original and original is not a post or outside the foundation, but an exercise in interpretation and philosophical creativity morality. By understanding and applied ethics, through what we find just the issues central to the philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: an anthropology of the human being capable, a hermeneutics of action and imagination, a reconstruction of the history of practical philosophy, and also an ethic of fair distance.

As per my new ontology and cognition theory, in my this paper, I demonstrate theory about Moral and Law, point out, the naturally limited freedom is the basis of moral and law. Following is my new ontology and cognition: New ontology: The onto is the uniform contradiction being. The essence of people: The uniformcontrast body within people’s body, is “ego and nonego”. New Cognition: Cognition course moves by the force from the contrast between the Ego and Nonego within an exist being live body. Above ontology and cognition is the theory basis of my this paper.

With the rapid development of modern technology, people has stepped into an risky era. Ethical stipulation is the important means to reduce the risks. But in reality, ethical stipulation of technology always face some kind of dilemma which mainly come from two aspects: one is that when we try to regulate the subject oftechnology, we find that it always difficult to distinguish the responsibilities. The other aspect is that when we try to limit the result of technology, we often have to give up because of lacking feasibility, which means we sink into the famous “Collingridge dilemma”. Are we able to get out of the dilemma? What should we doif we want to got out of it? First, in the modern technological system, individual’s action is taken over by group’s action according to the technological criterion. Any part of the modern technology need multiple subjects finish his job during the course. Therefore a new form of responsibility named group responsibility has been formed. Like Johnas said, in this ethics, ‘I’ will be replaced by ‘we’ and decision will be the business of a group. So it is difficult for us to find out that “I” from “us” once the technological risks happened. We lost the object of ethical stipulation as the result of no convinced standard and principals of prescribing the group responsibility. Second, when we try to stimulate some certain results of technology, we find we lack not only the wisdom of precisely judging or assessingtechnology itself, but also the ability of correcting the bad results if it has. Here again do we fall into the dilemma. This make it difficult for us to stipulate technology with ethic. From above discussion we can see, the stipulation, no matter from the aspect of technological responsibility or from aspect of the application of technology, has been sure to meet the dilemma. If the conflicts between a hypothesis and experiment cannot be eliminated, we have to rethink the theoryand come back again to technology itself and pursue the essence of technology again. Technology is a process from inventing, designing to forming material technological products; is a process from invisible technology to visible technology; is a process potential technology to real-life technology or intellective technology to reallife technology. Technology exists in process. The essential and innate characteristic is it’s process and dynamics. The transition oftechnological form involves many factors of economic, social, historical, constitutional and cultural. Technological creation of intellectual form is the duty of inventor or technologist. And it is entrepreneur’s job to use the technology or invention, and make them in large quantity, apply them in reality or get economic or other profit. Although there need be interaction, understanding, cooperation, support, coordination among scientist, technologist and enterpriser, they have different responsibility and delimitation. Technology exists in process, no doubt, so does modern technology. This decides that the ethical stipulation of modern technology should be a process stipulation . The essence of modern technological is not only the limitation of subject of technology either not only controlthe object of technology. It is the ethical stipulation in the unity of subject and object of technological dynamic process. This is basic point of understanding ethical stipulation of modern technology. Responsibility ethics consider that the group responsibility as the premise of technological stipulation .It noticed the static structure of modern technological system, but neglect the dynamic linkage between factors. And it only analysed the special construction, neglected the evolution of system of technological responsibility and the inter relationship between space dimension and time dimension. If we unfold the group responsibility along with the process of technology, we will see the different responsibility belong to different subject in different stage of the process. We can also see that different actors obey different norm or criteria according to their task. In this case, we can distinct the distribution of the group responsibility. Collingridge fixed the effective control on the two points of “before ”and ”after” the process of the technological action, namely, the stipulation for the staring point and stipulation of terminal point. But the whole process was neglected. According to the point of view of process stipulation .it is not the sudden occurrence for technology from “nothing ”to “having”. There are time and space during the process. From middle experiment to industrial experiment, the most characters of the result of technology will havebeen shown gradually, so will the social results. So we can give the small quantity an ethical evaluation and ethical choice which is possible and feasible. Over all, if we confirm the ethical stipulation of modern technology is a process regulation, we can delimitate the responsibility of the subjects of technology and also settle the prestipulation of the application of technology. At the end, we can eliminate the dilemma of ethical regulation of modern technology.

Chez P. Ricoeur se distingue de langue et de parôle en analysant de discours. Il souligne en quoi une meilleure étude des structures narrative est éclairante pour l'étude du régime d'historicité, à condition de ne pas confondre dans une indistinction ontologique les discours d'ordre historique et d'ordre fictionnel.Avec Temps et Récit, Ricoeur poursuit aussi sa confrontation avec l'oeuvre de Heidegger, dont la réflrxtion sur l'historialité a beaucoup compté pour lui. On peut déceler derrière la triologie de Ricoeur une forme de réponse à Etre et Temps. Selon Ricoeur, il ne s'agit d'hypostasier ni le récit ni le temps, mais de montrer comment dans la triangulation récit-temps-action, c'est en fait cette dernière dimention qui occupe une position fondatrice, car c'est dans l'agir et le pâtir que se situe la structure première du temps, laquelle ne peut s'exprimer que sous la forme d'un récit. On peut ainsi mesurer, sur un thème commun aux deux périodes, le parcours réalisé avec Temps et Récit. A la notion traditionnelle de continuité en histoire il substitue la notion plus élaborée de mise en intrigue, commeopération configurante du rapport du récit au temps. L'autre continuité majeure qui accompagne son intérêt pour la question de l'historicité est son souci de tenir ensemble les deux versants de celle-ci, le versant de l'histoire racontée et celui de l'histoire à faire, donc l'articulation sur un agir. P. Ricoeur place donc le discours historique dans une tension qui lui est propre entre identité narrative et ambition de vérité. Il y a aussi la condition de l'événement historique devient tributaire de sa mise en intrigue. Elle est la médiation qui assure la matérialisation du sens de l'expérience humaine du temps "aux trois niveaux de sa préfiguration pratique, de sa configuration épistémique et de sa reconfiguration herméneutique." La mise en intrigue joue le rôle d'opérateur, de miseen relation d'événements hétérogènes. En réticent face aux risques de l'hyperbole, convaincu du caractère aporétique de toute quête directe, de toute tentative de remontée aux conditions qui donnent accès à une temporalité toujours déjà constituée, déjà‐là, et donc nécessairement imparfaite.