Među mnoštvom dimenzija kolektivnog identiteta, ovaj rad istražuje identitet kao retorički alat. Identitetska oznaka je upravo primjer pragmatične učinkovitosti. Kako bi se objasnila ta moć, izložit će se hipotetički model identitetskih kategorija. Njegovi konstitutivni moduli oblikuju četiri osnovne dimenzije: pozicija, deindividualizacija, isključenje i kognitivna zaštita. Tako ocrtan narativni identitet postaje ekvivalentan neformalnoj ideologiji . Kao konstitutivna retorika , narativna konstrukcija identiteta pretvara autoreferencijalnu tautologiju u strategije diskriminacije, pročišćenja i istrebljenja nositelja drugosti. Masovna uništenja u prošlom stoljeću – totalitarizam, kolonijalizam, (...) etno-nacionalizam – proizvodi su identitetske paradigme. (shrink)

The general idea of this text is to reflect biopolitical constitution of the society and its implications related to the issues of animal welfare. Since animal in biopolitical formation is technically reduced to an object - commodity for contentment of the industry and of the people needs - critical public advisories are calling from moral, ethical and legal standpoint for attention to the fact that is necessary to protect animals from the unnecessary exploitation. It is obvious that animal protection is (...) evoking animal rights question. But in the last instance protection of animal rights is related to the nutritional dilemma of animal food use. Question is arising: does animal rights in particular also envisage change in food politics, what is for instance the extreme vegan option taking for granted? This challenge sent to the culture of all-food eaters is opening up new questions and dilemmas. First of all, there is a question linked to the right of men to choose his own nutritional option, and of course dilemma which is related to scruples about meat-eaters and their ability to love animals. Opsta ideja ovog teksta je promisliti biopoliticnu konstituciju savremenog drustva i njene implikacije vezane za status zivotinja. Posto je zivotinja u biopolitickoj konstituciji tehnoloski gledano svedena na objekt - na predmet za zadovoljavanje potreba industrije i populacije - kriticna masa upozorava sa moralnog, etickog i pravnog gledista, da je potrebno zastiti zivotinje pred neopravdanom eksploatacjom. Zastita zivota evocira pitanje prava zivotinja, koja nas dovode u poslednjoj instanci do dileme vezane za upotrebu zivotinja u prehrani. Postavlja se pitanje: da li zastita prava zivotinja podrazumeva i promenu politike ishrane - napustanje ishrane mesom - kako zahteva ekstremna veganska opcija? Taj izazov upucen kulturi svastojeda povlaci za sobom pre svega onu vrstu pitanja koja se ticu prava coveka da sam iazbere nacin na koji ce se prehranjivati, odnosno dilemu da li je covek sposoban za ljubav prema zivotinjama uprkos cinjenici da se njima prehranjuje. (shrink)

U svome spisu O slobodi, John Stuart Mill predstavlja svoje poznato načelo nenanošenja štete na sljedeći način: “… samozaštita [je] jedina svrha zbog koje se čovječanstvo, pojedinačno ili kolektivno, ima pravo miješati u slobodu djelovanja svakog od svojih članova. […] On je odgovoran društvu samo za ono svoje ponašanje koje se tiče ostalih. […] Pojedinac je neograničeni gospodar nad samim sobom, nad svojim tijelom i dušom.” Dakle, postoji razlika između postupaka koji se tiču nas samih i postupaka koji se tiču (...) ostalih, te moralnoj kritici podliježu samo postupci koji se tiču ostalih. Međutim, iako se svi postupci na neki način tiču nas samih, nije jasno postoje li bilo koji postupci koji su isključivo takvi. Postoje i dvije dodatne poteškoće. Kao prvo, ‘pojedinac’ može i ne biti pojedinačna osoba; samo-određujuće zajednice, barem kada su sposobne samostalno odlučivati, također su ‘pojedinci’ u ovome smislu. Kao drugo, tvrdi se da se klase postupaka, djelatnosti i načina postupanja opravdavaju drukčije nego pojedinačni postupci. Koje su, dakle, granice koje ‘drugi’ imaju kako bi se ‘zaštititili’ od kojih ‘pojedinaca’ te koja prava na postupanje i zaštitu oni imaju? Ako je izvor opravdanja, u konačnoj raščlambi, zaštita ili obrana, što se – i zašto – treba ili mora zaštititi? Gdje leži crta razgraničenja između postupaka koji se tiču nas samih i postupaka koji se tiču ostalih? U našem vremenu, kao i u Millovu, nailazimo na mnoge situacije u kojima je takva crta potrebna, ali je teško odrediva ili ustanovljiva. Jedan takav primjer, slučaj istospolnih brakova, dodatno se ispituje u ovome članku.In his essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill presents the famous harmprinciple in the following manner: “[…] the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. […] The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. […] Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Hence, there is a distinction between self-regarding and other-regarding acts, and only the latter are subject to moral criticism. However, while all acts are in some way selfregarding, it is not clear if there are any which are exclusively so. There are two additional difficulties. First, the “individual” may not be an individual person; self-determining communities, at least when they have the ability to decide for themselves, are also “individuals” in this sense. Second, it is claimed that groups of acts have a different kind of justification from single acts. So what are the limits which “others” have in order to protect themselves from what “individuals” do, and what are their rights to do and to protect? If, in the final analysis, protection or defense is a source of justification, what should or must be protected, and why? Where does the demarcation line between self-regarding and other-regarding acts lie? In our age, as in Mill’s, we encounter many situations where such a line is needed, yet is hard to determine or establish. One such example, the case of same-sex marriages, is further explored in this paper. (shrink)

Pitanje ovoga članka jest treba li nacionalnu pripadnost uvrstiti na popis primarnih dobara, odnosno, postoji li snažna veza između nacionalne pripadnosti i primarnih dobara o kojima se govori u klasičnoj liberalnoj formulaciji do mjere da njezina zaštita zaslužuje uvrštenje među njih. O ovom pitanju, na izravan ili manje izravan način, raspravljaju vodeći autori liberalne nacionalističke paradigme. U ovom tekstu posebno se raspravlja pretpostavljena veza između zaštite nacionalne pripadnosti i primarnog dobra društvenih osnova samopoštovanja. Unatoč određenoj potrebi javnog priznanja nacionalne (...) pripadnosti, utemeljenje njezine zaštite na razini primarnih dobara, barem kada je riječ o argumentu koji se poziva na društvene osnove samopoštovanja, nije uvjerljivo.The issue regarded in this article is whether we have to include national belonging in the list of primary goods, i.e., whether there is a strong connection between national belonging and primary goods about which the classical liberal theory speaks, such that the protection of national belonging must be included in the list of primary goods. Leading authors in the liberal nationalist paradigm, more or less directly, discuss about this issue. In this paper, the supposed connection between the protection of national belonging and the social bases of selfrespect is specifically discussed. Despite the reasons for some public protection of national belonging, its foundation at the level of primary goods, at least as far as it concerns the argument that relies on the social bases of selfrespect, is not plausible. (shrink)

Predmet ovog rada su eticki aspekti agresije NATO na SRJ, odnosno Srbiju, sprovodjene od marta do juna 1999. godine. Rad je koncipiran kao svojevrstan kriticki dijalog sa J. Habermasom, odnosno njegovim stavovima iznesenim u tekstu?Bestijalnost i humanost - rat na granici prava i morala?. Nakon kraceg prikaza Habermasovog stanovista, u uvodnom delu rada autorka razmatra moralne implikacije njegovog stava o hirurskoj preciznosti bombardovanja i principu postede civilnog stanovnistva kao karakteristikama ove agresije od, kako tvrdi ovaj autor, visokog legitimirajuceg znacaja. Potom (...) se usredsredjuje na kljucni, deklarativno moralni argument kojim se agresija opravdavala - zastita ugrozenih ljudskih prava kosmetskih Albanaca i sprecavanje humanitarne katastrofe kojoj su, kako se tvrdilo, bili izlozeni. Temeljnom analizom ovog argumenta, koju autorka sprovodi u nekoliko koraka, ona zakljucuje da agresija nije bila, kako je Habermas tvrdio, rat na granici prava i morala, vec s onu stranu i prava i morala, situirana duboko u domen interesno motivisanih oruzanih akata americke spoljne politike. PR Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 43007. (shrink)

The author analyses normative acts regulating the protection of animals, both at the national level (especially in the Republic of Serbia) and at the level of supranational organisations and state unions (the Council of Europe and the European Union), but also attempts to conceptualise the terms used in the documents observing the protection of animals. From the practical and philosophical perspective, this paper considers the terms (I) “animal” (“any vertebrate animal capable of experiencing pain, suffering, fear and stress”), (II) “welfare” (...) (“the provision of conditions in which animals can exercise their physiological and other species-specific needs”), (III) “abuse” (“any treatment or disregard of animals, that causes pain, suffering, fear, stress, injury, damages the genetic integrity of the animal and causes death intentionally or through negligence”), and other terms relevant to understanding the prevailing anthropocentric approach to animals. The paper also examines the difficulties in implementing the adopted legislation on the protection and welfare of animals caused by an insufficiently internalised sensitivity of official institutions as well as citizens towards so-called non-human living beings. In the author’s view, it is important that they do not fall below the achieved civilisational standards of ethical and moral culture in their cognitions and insights, and that they consider various topics related to animals with due caution and awareness of the dilemmas they may encounter in their professional work and lives. An appropriate pluriperspective approach and a consciousness of responsibility should eventually lead to a more sensitive attitude of said subjects towards the non-human part of the animal creation. (shrink)

Environmental issues are very relevant today, so this Paper analyses the very beginning of the formation of environmental awareness, questioning its basic determinants – both in time and space and in the causes and consequences of human action on the environment as one of the fundamental elements for any historical research. The paper also offers a brief comparative review of the situation in the Republic of Croatia and finally opens ground for future discussions primarily in the evaluation of progress and (...) development of environmental events in relation to those that this study detected as initial. (shrink)