Moral judgements have to be universalizable. There are many problems with this thesis (U). The problems to be dealt with here, are: (i) What is the connection between U and justifiablility? (ii) Is U a logical thesis? (iii) Is U analytically true? (iv) Is U adaquate? (v) Is utilitarianism a logical consequence of U?

According to some critics Carnap's philosophy is "reflectioness", i.e. without epistemic content. In contrast to this assertion this essay will show that in the writings of Carnap's semantical period, especially in "Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology", the fundamentals of an epistemology are developed. It may be called linguistic internalism. The exposition of frameworks are interpreted as an epistemological foundation of semantics. Several problems within this project are discussed, e.g. the determination of domains of frameworks, ontological existence sentences, the relation between theories and frameworks and limits of rationality.

There is a plurality of good reasons for action. An adequate theory of practical rationality has to be compatible with it even if it requires certain modifications of our everyday practices of reasoning. Usual theories of practical rationality do not pass this test. It is envisaged how to revise adequately our understanding of practical rationality.

This article argues for the thesis that there is only one basic form of rationality, which is applied in different areas. First of all, there is one meaning of the term "rational" which applies to all situations in which the term is used: "justified." If "rational" means simply "justified", then rationality can be broken down into as many types as there are kinds of justification. Two distinctions between kinds of justification seem particularly plausible: 1. relative vs. absolute justifications and 2. theoretical justifications of opinions vs. practical justifications of actions. Taken together, these two distinctions yield a division into four types of rationality. I maintain, however, that these two distinctions collapse upon more careful examination. In this article I will simply assume that no form of ultimate justification is convincing; thus, the first distinction does not apply. Against the second distinction I try to argue in this paper that theoretical rationality represents a form of practical rationality. The idea of an optimal choice of aims, actions, and opinions, which nonetheless differs from the orthodox model of practical rationality, thus proves to be the comprehensive central ingredient of the concept of rationality.

Some principles of logic-oriented theories of argumentation are discussed. A sharp distinction is drawn between arguments in formal contexts and arguments in non formal contexts. It is argued, that the analysis of colloquial arguments cannot be based on the logic-oriented theories of argumentation. The outline of a more realistic theory of argumentation is given, by using defeasable inferences as a starting point. The model is applied to some everyday arguments.

J. St. Mill's System of Logic (1843) is reexamined from the perspective of present-day analytical philosophy of the social sciences. His naturalistic epistemology, "state", "general/universal laws", "social statics/dynamics" are discussed, as well as his four methods. His nomological-behavioral position is analysed, along with his theoretical approach.

For understanding human action rationality is a fundamental poin of point. A prototheory of social science elaborate the types of social action under the conceptualization of rationalization and human freedom in societies. On this way it must be distinguished two - not interchangeable - concepts of rationalization: the rationality of purpose e.g. the rational choice of means (Zweckrationalität) and the rationality of understanding (Verständigungsrationalität). Language behaviour has for this conceptualization the status of the frametheory. But actions are not identical with language behaviour and are based on language external ressources. The conceptualizations of concepts of rationality are basic-assumptions for the construction of a structure-model of societal rationalization.

Starting from one of the classical criticisms of evolutionary thinking accusing it of being based on tautological reasoning and being unable to predict future events, the authors propose an escape route from this attack by programmatically specifying the notion of fitness with reference to three particular aspects: cultural context, individual choice and social networks. Paralleling recent developments in economics, that try to explain preference formation endogeneously, the authors argue for an endogeneous explanation of the evolutionary fitness landscape to explain the evolution of structural complexity.

The acceleration and qualitative change of West European integration in the 1980s — as evidenced by the Single European Act — were big events of the world political economy of that decade. They not only paved the way for political union, but also altered the competition in the Triad — United States, Western Europe and Japan. This article analyzes the relaunch of the European Community and later European Union in the framework of conflictive evolutionary theory. Two elements of that theory are combined to explain the timing, the forces behind and the actors involved. The arguments are developed from the theory of the rise and decline of societal models and from the theory of competition among governments in the world market for social order and protection. The thesis of an elite argain among European transnational corporations and the EC-Commission is exposed ana briefly confronted with empirical evidence from the author's research. The article also reflects the competitive position of Western Europe in the Triad and draws conclusions for the future structure of the core: no hegemon similar to Britain's and America's position in the past will emerge since the systemic conditions have changed.

Contrary to political rhetorics of market economy and democracy the so-called "transformation " of the former GDR - attempted to start a quick and nevertheless extensive social change - is in reality a change with little room for spontaneous order or self-organization, for social evolution or development. Analyzing this example this essay tries to work out the structural dynamics of social evolution and to demonstrate the diverse control media and alternative steering strategies available in postindustrial societies.

Ascriptive solidarity is a fundamental relationship in human societies. Sociologists have often stated this social fact but they have seldom explained this kind of solidarity. Karl Otto Hondrich has elaborated fundamental social laws which are useful for the explanation of the evolutionary dominance of ascriptive solidarity. In the context of sociological knowledge I intend - following this account - to sketch variations of ascriptive solidarity in an evolutionary perspective and to describe structural problems of social integration in modern societies.

The difficulties of sociologists - particularly in Germany - to contribute to the political discussion about 'Nation' and (recent) national movements is suggested do be due to insufficiant theoretical clarity. It is proposed to to define ethnic identity as cultural phenomenon. Political unrest and dangerous movements, however, arise, whenever to be 'ethnic' is associated with state/government in its modern sense. The recent experience of political-cultural hegemony over against socalled minorities' makes requests for ethnic self-determination plausible and necessary.

The evolution of the nation state is described as a process of bordernisation and de-bordernisation of macro-social units. The processes of political and cultural inclusion within the formation of the nation state lea to three paradoxes of implementation. These paradoxes are analysed with the dichotomies: universal - particularistic, affirmative - critical, and traditional - modern. These three kinds of self-description are reasons for both, the contradictions and the flexibility of the evolution of the nation state.

The sociology of emotion is still in its infancy and dominated by biological or psychological and social constructivist approaches. This contribution proposes a socio-structural approach integrating structural evolution and elementary processes of structuration with a typology of differential emotions. First, a concept of structural evolution is sketched out following leads by DURKHEIM, SIMMEL and FARARO; second, elementary mechanisms of structuration are combined with the structuration of identifications and perspectives in social networks; third, the processes of structuration are employed to reconstruct the socio-structural dimension of emotions and to develop a typology of structural emotions. The approach is not intended to replace constructivist theory, but to provide a structural basis for socio-cultural conceptions of emotional codes.

It is argued that sociological evolutionary theory can be regarded as a revised and extended version of classical evolutionism which explains not only structural differentiation but any form of macro-social dynamics. This explanatory programme finds its micro-foundation in an theory of individual and social action which allows for the identification of typical social dilemmata which in turn serve as a selectors for reproducible institutional arrangements. At the same time modern evolutionary dynamics unites quite different social- scientific disciplines into a coherent theoretical frame.