Tables of Contents
Introduction
Among
different approach concerning ethics, communitarian ethic seem to be more large
than other ethical principles which addresses oneself to everybody without
addresses oneself to one person or group of person or a particular domain like
in the case of deontology. Most larger in reason of the fact that communitarian
ethic concerns about all a community under the same rule, with the same aim
called common good. According to communitarian ethics which is a type of ethics
that guides the ethical norms of community, the rules of community, principles
of community, the theories of community, the common values of community, the common
good of community, social goals of community and custom or traditional
practices of the latter . In that type of ethics, there is a direct link
between the rules or principles which guide community with the final aim of
that community. Communitarian ethics think that the content of moral action,
the credibility of judgment or of the validity of a good action arises from institution,
history, traditions, customs and proper value of the community. Communitarians
do not share the point of view in which our society is the result and
manifestation of the value neutral which is the matter of liberalism. According
to these latter, individualistic approach of utilitarianism can really assure
the common good. The latter come from the fact that the well good of all
community is a matter of together work, a matter of whole community. The
problem which arises from that approach of ethics is the nature of functioning
of community under base of communitarian ethics rules. Thus, in order to result
that problem, we should answer these questions. What are criteria of a good or
bad moral action in the context of communitarian ethics? Which principles and
characteristics can they have in order to maintain be the assurance of well
good of community? How thinkers conceive the quest? African communitarian
ethics, can it have the same rules and basis like western communitarian ethics?
If it is the case, what is more
important than other for humanity in general? The answer to these questions
aims to detail the question about communitarian ethics.
I – Definition of
communitarian ethics
A way of clarification of the concept
of communitarian ethics consists to clarify communitarianism, community and
ethic. The link between these three concepts can perform comprehension of the
central concept called communitarian ethics. Communitarianism can be knows as a
theoretical perspective that seeks to lessen the focus on individual rights and
increase the focus on communal responsibilities. On political point of view,
communitarianism is a political philosophy that often stands in opposition of
liberalism. Their members think that community is the most important element of
a society or culture. As such, its stability must be enhanced and protected. Then,
what is community? Meaning of community varies and can refer not only to
anything from the nuclear or extended family to the political state or nation,
but also to a group of people who live in the same area or a group of people
with a common background, or a group of nation with common history and common economic
or political interest. In these different ways, community can be family,
country, sub-regional organization, regional or continent organization. The
most important is the common share of same thing. It can be on political angle,
economic or historical. In that context, the common vision of things is included.
Then, what is definition of ethic? Ethic can be defined more simply as a system
of moral standards or principles. It refers to some rule which can guide one
person like one family like one country. The existence of norms like the norm
ISO 9001 enters in that logic in the aim to be a moral standard of regulation
of all business productions. From all evidence, communitarian ethics is a
proper ethic of a community. The implication of that meaning is the fact
ethical thought is established with the consent and consideration of the whole
community. In communitarian ethics, there is an emphasizing of the influence of
community or society on individuals.
In addition, communitarian ethics emphasizes the common good
as an ideal for his members, essentially the common good of all members of the
community. The individual approach inside communitarian ethics is not allowed. Community
view should not be challenged, but a matter of consent of all community. Thus,
individual members gain self-confidence from merely belonging to a community,
but also will lose some individual identity. Bus, the group has the ability to
banish members who do not follow the rules of the community and individualist
members who find a cause or a truth the group would rather not explore; because
rules are set by community and often examination of the latter is not
necessary. The fact is that individualist examination of rule emphasizes the
formation and establishment of own moral reasoning. While this does include
respect for human life and dignity, allowing for all persons to achieve a
meaningful potential, the common good also calls for concern for long-terms us
trainability, intergenerational justice, an emphasis on active and informed
citizenship, and a balance between individual and communal interests. In the
perspective of communitarian ethics, think John Arras and Bonnie Steinbock “A
good society, it is argued, would focus not only on individual rights, but also
on the good of the larger community.”[1]
In regard to that clarification, what are the characteristics of communitarian
ethics?
1 –
Characteristics of communitarian ethics
According
to communitarian ethical theorists, all our guiding ethical norms, rules,
principles and theories can be recognized inside a community merely by the link
of some characteristics. Those characteristics according to some communitarian
thinkers can be assimilated to the principles. Here we make distinction in
order to precise the first elements of recognition of a communitarian context.
When we talk about characteristic of communitarian ethics, it refers to these
first elements of recognition of a communitarian context. Each element has a
particular signification for all community and each member recognizes oneself
to each element and belongs to the community just because he recognizes oneself
as a member of community. Among these characteristics, we can quote:
·
The respect for human life and dignity. Here, in the
perspective of communitarians, human life is sacred. The human person is a
value inalienable and his dignity deserves respect and consideration.
·
The achieve a meaningful potential for all person. If human
being is really sacred in communitarian context, the consequence is that he
should be understood from every members of community. Thus, the morality which
arises from their tradition and institutions must be the result of consent of
everybody.
·
The long-term sustainability of the common good. Here, the
collaboration of all members of community aims to assure the sustainable
character of common good in long term. It’s for that reason that individualism
is banned.
·
Intergenerational justice. Justice here is a matter of
context or generation. Ethic of communitarian justice is intergenerational,
that means it depends of people who were born at approximately the same time,
considered as a group. Bus, generations are not same, same thing for their
problems. When a necessity of modification of some text presents oneself,
community as a whole adopts the modifications. Same thing from the one
generation to another.
·
Encouragement of collaboration and promotion of values of the
community. Communitarian ethics members are conceived here as a block in which
collaboration is capital and the promotion of values is their leitmotiv. In
order to be solid and compact, community should encourage collaboration between
members and promotion of values.
·
Sacrifice for the common good. Common good is the aim and
finality of any group in communitarian ethics context. For that reason, each
member of community must be do effort and sacrifice for the group. In such
context, individualism is not welcome.
·
Reject of individualism value or moral. The previous
characteristic is entirely the opposite of this one. If individual and his
properties must be scarified to the profit of the common good of community, man
as an individual is nothing in comparison of group. Community is above him.
Therefore, all individual attitudes in the moral aspect like in the heritage or
material aspect is rejected.
As a member of a group directed by a communitarian
ethics, it is possible to be recognized by these previous characteristics. These
characteristics can be summarized in three mains principles.
2 –
Communitarian ethics principles
Communitarian
ethics is based on three fundamental principles. Generally, these principles guide
all members of community as a block; they are:
·
The first requires that any claim of truth be validated
through co-operative enquiry. This principle enhances the value of
collaboration between members of community and that collaboration promotes the
values established by all members through co-operative enquiry. In that
co-operative enquiry, achieve of meaningful of each member is really effective.
·
In the second,
communities of co-operative inquiry, which represent the spectrum of citizens,
should validate common values that become the basis of mutual responsibilities
of all community members. This second principle is consecutive to the first
through which enquiry is made in co-operative manner. From this enquiry, will
born a common values, morals, norms or principles touchy to be a basic document
of all members. These latter are mutual responsible from themselves through the
document.
·
In the third finally, all citizens should have equal access
and participation in the power structure of society. This principle is the
basis of communitarian ethics group, bus it aims the common good for everybody
in the group. The research of common good, is directly linked to the sacrifice
of each individual for the profit of common well good and the reject of
plausible individualist attitudes.
The main way of communitarian ethics is the recognition of
society as the key of resolving ethical questions and conflicts lies in respect
for local values that demonstrate careful deliberation and local community
acceptance. Consideration is also given to general alignment and accountability
with the values of the larger society; however, the system of moral rules of a
particular community is best understood in the context of that community’s and
historical view of social welfare and related social interests. Through the
communitarian ethics principles, some theories will establish in order to
analyze and present the varieties perceptions or approaches of communitarian
ethics.
II – Communitarian ethics
theories
There are some thinkers who are
established and think about communitarian ethics. Their theories aim to defend
the conception of society or community as a part of human life. Community for
these thinkers is the way of success, happiness and well common good. They have
different approaches in order to enhance the value of community.
1 –
Aristotle: man as an animal political
According to Aristotle, in The politics man is described as a
“animal political. The word politic here refers to the life in the city; it’s
sociability of man who is naturally called to live society with others. This
sociability of man is his intrinsic character, because he can not be conceived
apart from collectivity. The first element of that sociability is family which,
according Aristotle is the first community directed by a head of family. The
polis or city in that sense is not merely an enlarged family; it is also an
association of person leading a good life done in the mutual respect, in the
logical order, in the temperance and moderation. Family as a natural community
in the Aristotle perspective is a natural necessity for the well good of all
its members. The cooperation of different families widens community. In regard
to the characteristics of communitarian ethics, we can note the fact that
research of common well good in family is the same like the sacrifice for the
common good in communitarian ethics. In order to be in the common good, each
member of family must do his work in the moderation, in the respect of others. This
collaboration in family enhances promotion of values of the family and by
extension of the society. In that context, Aristotle, in the ancient period, is
a theoretician of communitarian ethics.
2- Markate Daly: Community like expression of
values through institution and social need
For her, it is essential that
communitarianism in general became a doctrine of life and communitarian ethics
in particular the method and instrument for this life. In communitarian ethics
theory, Daly as a philosopher thinker assumes the fact that community is a part
of human life; as such, every individual is a member of a community and through
this develops identities, relationships, and attachments with others. The
members of community express their values through their institutions on the
traditional plan like on the political, social, economic, historical and
cultural plan and their social needs, tempered by natural and mutual kindness. In
the sense of Markate Daly, communitarian is radically the opposite of liberal
notion. In her book entitled Communitarianism,
she makes distinction between the both as: “ instead of such values as
individual interests, autonomy, universality, natural rights and neutrality,
communitarian philosophy is framed in terms of common good, social practices
and tradition, character, solidarity and social responsibility”[2]
3 - Wendell
Berry: Community above human life and his properties
According to Berry, community is considered like an entity which is
abode all different consideration. He reminds the fact that not all communities
are moral, and those communities set to destroy or diminish human life and
property should not be considered only communities. Community in that way is
sacred at the level where human being can give his life to the name of
community. In the same logic John Paul Ferre confirm Berry’s sentiments,
stating that: “because a moral community is a condition for person-hood, a
group is not ipso facto good, and no community can excuse inhuman behavior”
Berry, by the force of his statement is an example of communitarian thinker who
realizes the need for a conception of individual good to balance the supreme
good of community stability. But, the question will be the following: can we
yet talk about communitarian ethics or communitarian simply if individual good
is realized in one community where we search common good? It is possible for
that balance to be tenable? If every member of community research to balance
his individual good inside the supreme good, what happen?
4 - Taylor
Charles: Participation to the community for self
There is in conception of communitarian according to Charles
Taylor, a will for man to be in community not for the community, but for
himself. By his participation to the growth of community, to the happiness of
community, man, in the sense of Charles, participate at his proper elevation,
his proper happiness. The important in that sense is not the good of community,
but the good of man. The consequence is that the good of man as members of
community, as participant of community infers the good of all community. Like
his predecessors, contemporary Western communitarians strive to show that the
individual has more interactive connections with the Whole than libertarians
make of her. While not denying the autonomy of the individual, they emphasize
the significance of her participation in as well as dependence on the community
for her sense of self, for her freedom, and for her moral development and
agency. According to this view, individuals are constituted by the institutions
and practices of which they are part, and their rights and obligations derive from
those same institutions. Charles Taylor argues: “There is a connection between
four terms: not just our notions of the good and our understandings of the
self, but also the kinds of narrative in which we make sense of our lives, and
conceptions of society, i.e., conceptions of what it is to be a human agent
among human agents (. . .) Our modern senses of the self not only are linked to
and made possible by new understandings of good but also are accompanied by new
forms of narrativity and new understandings of social bonds and relations.”[3]
5 –
Alasdair MacIntyre: Understanding the good inside historical traditional
context
Taylor’s position seems to be parallels to those of MacIntyre’s
on the individual’s construction of her self-identity and agency as a result of
participation in specific social bonds and narratives of which they are part.
In After Virtue MacIntyre writes: “I am someone’s son or daughter, someone
else’s cousin or uncle; I am a citizen of this or that city, a member of this
or that guild or profession; I belong to this or that clan, that tribe, this
nation. Hence what is good for me has to be the good for one who inhabits these
roles. As such I inherit from the past of my family, my city, my tribe, my
nation, a variety of debts, inheritances, rightful expectations, and
obligations.”[4] According to him, the good
pursued by individual cannot be comprehended outside the context of historical
traditions. A living tradition, then, he says, ‘‘is a historically extended,
socially embodied argument, and an argument precisely in part about the goods
which constitute that tradition’’[5].
In other words, for Alasdair, the criteria of rationality for justifying moral
values and for accounting for what counts as, for example, justice and its
practical instances, are grounded in tradition. As a result, there are
different types of practical rationality. He asserts, “Is such a movement in
the course of which those engaging in that movement become aware of it and of
its direction and in self-aware fashion attempt to engage in its debates and to
carry its enquiries forward. The relationships which can hold between
individuals and a tradition are very various, ranging from unproblematic
allegiance through attempts to amend or redirect the tradition to large
opposition to what have hitherto been its central contentions.”[6]
From this standpoint, MacIntyre argues, liberalism may be seen as part of a
discourse located in the heart of a search for solutions to practical problems
in a lived tradition. Western communitarianism is a similar kind of search. But
because it arises in the context of a perceived incongruency between the values
of liberalism, on the one hand, and, on the other, the reality of the
deprivation of groups, which is viewed as contrary to the very values,
articulated by liberalism, it stands more as a watchdog for the common good
than as a robust social theory.
6 -
Habermas: All decisions are a matter of collectivity
In The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a
Category of bourgeois society, Jurgen Habermas, as a prominent philosopher,
uses a system of communitarian philosophy in proposing a dialectic that must be
open to the community. Within his system, all decisions, particular problematic
decisions, can be made to the collective manner. In that sense, he joins
Feyerabend Paul Karl for who everybody can say some thing in the scientific community
about validation analysis of scientific theories. When he talks about
everybody, he refers not only to the specialists who are Scientifics, but also
to the man of street who don’t know anything about science. According to
Habermas in the same way, each member who is component to speak to the subject
is given equal time and input into the decision process.
7- Hegel:
Collective right is most basic than individual
The German thinker founded the philosophical character of his
approach of communitarian in his book entitled: The Philosophy of Right. Generally, Western communitarianism
maintains the fact that the rights of individuals are not basic, and that the
collective can have rights that are independent of, and even opposed to, what
liberals claim are the rights of individuals. Inspired to some extent by the
patriotic instinct to resist the French emperor who had conquered and trampled
over a disunited Germany, a new mood developed among German writers and poets,
turning their interests inward upon their own nation, their people, and their
race. For them the people, was endowed not merely with a history, which
obviously every people possesses, but also with a sort of mystical essence and
value transcending both the merits of the nation’s present members and the
external facts of its past. To this depersonalized but emotionally powerful
entity Rousseau’s idea of general will as something different from the mere
opinion of the majority, something which rather subsumed majority and minority
in an irresistible higher synthesis defying numerical analysis, supplied a
further dimension. The state, for Hegel, is not a simple, unitary entity, but
one with three separately conceived characteristics, all interconnected because
all operative amongst the same population on the same territory, but still all
conceptually distinct. There is the state in the sense nearest to our own
common usage, the ‘‘political’’ state, which can be described by pointing to
its institutions of government and lawmaking. There is also the ‘‘civil’’
state, consisting of the mass of arrangements which individuals make with one
another rather than have imposed upon them, such as contracts, marriages, the establishment
of corporations; things perhaps which might have spontaneously evolved even if
the political state did not exist. And then there is the state in a far wider
and less concrete sense, the state as the sum of all the ethical values, all
the shared experiences and responses, the consciousness of belonging together
through history, reinforced by religious and cultural homogeneity. This
‘‘ethical’’ state is the one to which Hegel accords supreme value and
importance. It is in this perspective that the individual achieves freedom and
self-fulfillment through participation in its transcendent life. The
expressions Hegel used for conveying his ideas about the state in this very
special sense can be found in his Philosophy of Right “The state in and by itself
is the ethical whole, the actualization of freedom”[7]
In the same book, Hegel makes it clear that he genuinely believes in individual
freedom and in the value of the individual, and deplores evil or oppressive
states. The state, he says, ‘‘is not ideal work of art; it stands on earth and
so in the sphere of caprice, chance, and error, and bad behavior may disfigure
it in many respects’’[8]
And he disapproves of the state as Plato had envisaged it, because, in it,
‘‘subjective freedom does not count’’, and subjective freedom must be
respected, as, for example, by letting people choose their own calling in life.
8 –
Amitai Etzioni: Authoritarian and responsive approach on communitarianism
First
of all, Amitai Etzioni develops his communitarian approach in bioethics context
which affirms the consideration of individual autonomy. He elaborates
profoundly that approach in two ways. The first way concern the Authoritarian
which gives priority to the needs of society. The second way concerns the
responsive. Here, there is a conflict between individual autonomy and the
common good.
About authoritarian aspect, the
thinker says that the common well good considerations are to replace respect
for autonomy; here all privileges are given to community, mainly for the
reasons of social needs and negligent the consideration of autonomy or liberty.
For Amitai that kind of communitarianism is rejected in west for the normative
and methodological reasons. “One major reason many, especially in the West,
reject this kind of communitarianism on normative grounds is that they hold
autonomy in high regard. Another reason is methodological, a reason that
deserves to be briefly discussed because it points to a rather different kind
of communitarianism. The methodological point draws on the precept that sound
normative positions cannot be derived from one overarching value. Societies are
complex beings, composed of people who hold different values and have different
needs and interests.”[9]
About
responsive communitarianism approach, we must first of all remind the fact that
the starting view is the recognition of the idea according to which
relationship between autonomy and common good must be worked out rather than
assuming a priori that one of these core values trumps the other. In the same
way, it does also recognize that there are conditions under which the sate must
be involved, although it is best used as the last, rather than the first,
resort. The permanent interaction between autonomy and common good affect also health.
That tension can be perceived through the example of Hardwig illustrated by
Amitai. He declares: “John Hardwig's argument moves us far towards a responsive
communitarian position. Hardwig holds that 'the interests of patients and
family members are morally to be weighed equal' and 'to be part of a family is
to be morally required to make decisions on the basis of thinking about what is
best for all concerned, not simply what is best for yourself'. It is an issue that
arises often in matters that do not directly concern health: for instance, the
effect of divorce on the children of the couple. In a bioethical context, the
issue is well illuminated by a popular book; My Sister's Keeper It depicts a
situation in which various members of a family, the family's very existence and
the quality of the relationships among family members are all deeply affected
by the sacrifices called for by the medical condition of one member.”[10]
III – Western and African
comparative approach about communitarian ethics
This part aims to present the
conception of communitarian ethic not only in African context, but also in
western approach. That presentation wants to make a comparison between African
communitarian ethics approach and those from western, while this latter has
already profound done in chapter two.
1 – African
approach
In Africa, the theoretical beginning
of communitarianism as noted earlier on are due to the emancipatory politics of
independence from European colonialism. But as an ethic of every day life it
precedes recent African political and intellectual movements. Its expression
can be found in many local idioms among African communities. Among most
African, communitarianism is not a doctrine, although most Africans would be
able to explain clearly why the social order related to its ethic would be a
better way of living for humans than any other “It is human who sacrifice for
each other (literally, “it is among humans that one may decide to go hungry for
a night so another person can eat”). In African moral definition, communitarian
describes the belief in the principle of practical altruism as an important characteristic
of human life. Like everywhere else in human society, African communitarian is
a principle for guiding the practice of everyday life in ways that aim at
creating a humane world in which “Individuals will have the chance of realizing
their interests, conceived as being intrinsically bound up with the interests
of others in society”[11]
In other way, the real thinking of African communitarianism
started with the fight of political independences and all systems of thought related African
communitarianism to tradition, social
and political ground and put it against the liberalism of the colonizer. That
is why we had as consciencism of
Kwame Nkrumah which was built on the traditional social African values. Through
the consciencism, says Nkrumah, it is possible to develop Africa merely by the
link of conscious of our necessity to be united which is to the basis of our
political, economical, cultural, infrastructural development. In addition, Leopold
Sedar Senghor through his concept of negritude thought that African socialism
was a part of his humanism. He traced African communitarianism to a way of
life, in experiences of the world. The way Africans think, fell in union not
only with all other people around them but with all the things in the universe.
2 –
Western approach
In order to avoid repetition, we can
say that all theories above developed on chapter two are western communitarian
ethics theories. A reading of that chapter gives to the reader, a general view
of what is western communitarian ethics. The must interest of that
communitarian ethics is those of Amitai Etzioni with his authoritarian and
responsive communitarian ethics in bioethics. As, by way of reminder, we can
just say that about the Authoritarian communitarian ethics, priority is given
to the needs of society; then in what concerns the responsive communitarian
ethics, there is a conflict or tension between individual autonomy and the
common good.
IV – Critical analysis and
interest of communitarian ethic
The following lines will present the
limits of communitarian ethics and its importance in the humanity.
1 –
Limits of communitarian ethics
There
is a problem in the organization of society according communitarian ethics. In
the their aim which consist to assure common good for all his members through a
cooperative enquire of the truth, the same value, norm and principle,
communitarian theorist have forgotten the fact that man is bidimensional being.
It that means, a being which at the same time good and bad, a being which
fundamentally egocentric and egoist. In that context he is not naturally
appealed to help and work for or with his similar. In that perspective, is an
illusion to think that man can be submitted to certain categories, norms and
value for the profit of community. If we consider him as an egoist being, in
any circumstance he will always think to his proper interest before others. In
order to result to egoist character of man, Machiavelli thinks that Leviathan
must use physical force in order to compel others to obedience. Egoism of man
is most strong than norms and values of community. In addition, communitarian’s
ethics sometimes argue against rights on grounds that rights function to give
individuals too much power, thereby stalling communal organization and
activities and dulling our sense of social union. This claim misses the value
of right for communities. We value right because, when enforced, they provide
protections against unscrupulous behaviors, promote orderly change and
cohesiveness in communities, and allow diverse communities to coexist
peacefully within a single political state. Rights are necessary both to enable
individuals to live safely and to protect them from oppressive communities.
Even if we grant communitarian arguments that the best life is communal one it
would not follow that communities should determine the individual goals or
truncate individual rights.
2 –
Interest of communitarian ethics
Beyond the limits of our exercise, our topic rest important
for humanity. The force of the communitarian perspective include the emphasis
on strong connections between people, encouragement of collaboration like
underlined in the characteristics, diminished emphasis on self-serving
individualism, and sacrifice for the greater good as a measure of character. On
the negative side, many would question how realistic it is to achieve a common
set of global, or even local, values. We might also be concerned with the
potential for erosion of individual rights and no systematic method for
resolving ethical conflicts. Bus, all depend from the subject of conflict and
claim the presence of every members of community. It means that by emphasizing
historical traditions and institutional practices, communitarian theories have
redirected ethical theory in recent years and have help to rediscover the
importance of community, even if we accept liberal values. For instance,
communitarians rightly emphasize the need to foster neighborhood, associations,
create communal ties, promote public health, and develop national goal. These
qualities are necessary in the Cameroonian context where egoism and
individualism affect the management of country. It is in that sense that we can
assist to the misappropriation of public funds. In the same way, by the link of
communitarian ethics, we must learn to give and make of good for others. This is what disposes us in our better
moments, not to desire for others what we would not desire for ourselves.
Conclusion
In conclusion, just remind the idea
according to which the problem which made object of our reflection is that the
nature of functioning of community under base of communitarian ethics rules. In
order to clarify this problem, we have firstly defined the key concept which is
communitarian ethics and presented its characteristics and its principle.
Secondly, by the mediation of authors, we have presented the theories on
communitarian ethics. After these theories, in the third part, it was the
moment for us to analyze western and African comparative approach on
communitarian ethics. The last part fourthly, was aimed to examine critically
communitarian ethics and presented its importance. From all evidence, it is
really possible for communitarian ethics principles to dominate in the world in
front liberalism with its son individualism?
Bibliography
John Arras and Bonnie
Steinbock, Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, Mayfield Publishing Company, California,
1977.
Daly,
Markate, Ed. 1994, Communitarianism, A
New Public Ethic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Taylor,
Charles, Sources of the Self: the making
of modern identity, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1989.
MacIntyre,
Alasdair, After virtue: A study in moral
theory, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1967) The
Philosophy of Right, trans. T. M. Knox, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Amitai Etzioni, Authoritarian
versus responsive communitarian bioethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol.
37, No. 1, January 2011, Published by: BMJ
Wiredu, Kwasi (1996) Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Habermas, J., 1989. The
structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of
bourgeois society. Trans. Thomas Burger with Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Etzioni
Amitai, The communitarian reader, beyond
the essentials, Volmert Andrew and Rothschild Elanit, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Etzioni
Amitai, The Spirit of Community: Rights,
Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda. New York, Crown, 1993.
Nkrumah, Kwame (1970) Consciencism: Philosophy and Ideology for
Decolonization and Development with Particular Reference to the African
Revolution, London: Panaf Books.
[1] John
Arras and Bonnie Steinbock, Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, Mayfield
Publishing Company, California, 1977, P. 27
[2] Daly, Markate, Ed. 1994, Communitarianism,
A New Public Ethic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, P. 17
[3] Taylor, Charles, Sources of
the Self: the making of modern identity, Cambridge, Harvard University
Press, 1989, P. 105
[4] MacIntyre, Alasdair, After
virtue: A study in moral theory, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame
Press, 1984, P. 216.
[6] Ibid. P. 326
Press), p. 279.
[8] Ibid. P. 280
[9] Amitai Etzioni, Authoritarian
versus responsive communitarian bioethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol.
37, No. 1, January 2011, p. 17, Published by: BMJ.
[10] Amitai Etzioni, Authoritarian versus responsive
communitarian bioethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 37, No. 1, January
2011, p. 20, Published by: BMJ.
Indiana University Press).
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire