The author gives a model by which it is possible to interpret ethics from the standpoint of gender. Above all, it emphasizes the importance of recognizing the level of particularity and its integration between the universal and individual level. This methodological instruction enables us to recognize social differences that result from various types of repression, and affect the possibility of ethical behaviour of large groups of people. It results in the impossibility of individuals’ to act ethically and, subsequently, in their (...) being denoted as non-subjects:slaves, victims of mobbing, prostitutes, exiles, exploited workers, the hungry, the unemployed, women…Gender issues in ethics can be approached through the mentioned aspects of: subject, body values and relevant topics. The ethical subject’s aspect shows the neutrality and lack of definition of the subject’s gender throughout history. However, this refers only to the male gender, while the female gender’s possibility of being subject has been either reduced or excluded throughout history. The entry into ethics through the body or nature issue presents a connection between male violence towards women and human violence towards nature. A gender analysis of ethics through the aspect of values shows an actual redefinition of values through the affirmation of women’s values: care, life and cooperation.Finally, many issues from the gender studies’ domain are eminently ethical issues : rape, marital rape, wartime rape, violence against women, domestic violence, abortions, mutilation, prostitution, pornography…. (shrink)

Tekst je potaknut polemikom Gaje Petrovića sa Savkom Dabčević Kučar iz 1965. godine, odnosno člankom »O nepoštednoj kritici svega postojećeg« . Petrović kritiku poima prije svega kao analitičko sredstvo kojim se dopire do bîti .No Petrović integrira kritiku u čitav sustav svoje filozofije povezujući je s pojmovima ‘sloboda’ i ‘praksa’. Naime sintagma »sve postojeće«, koja se veže uz kritiku, daje joj aktivno i društveno značenje . Petrović ironizira situaciju u našem društvu toga vremena gdje »nema predrasuda«, pa nisu potrebna »ograničenja«, (...) »izuzetci« i »dopuštenja« za kritiku. Moglo bi se reći da je kritika bit filozofskog opusa Petrovića, koji se stavlja u poziciju kritičara dogmatske filozofije i politike koja prisvaja monopol nad kritikom. Upravo stoga valja istaknuti važnost Gaje Petrovića, a značenje kritike svega postojećega – što podrazumijeva i kritiku kao društvenu privilegiju i moć – aktualno je i danas.This text was inspired by the discussion between Gajo Petrović and Savka Dabčević Kučar in 1965, that is, by the article “About the Unrelenting Criticism of All that Exists” . Petrović conceives criticism primarily as an analytical vehicle that reaches the essence .However, Petrović integrates criticism into his entire philosophical system, linking it with concepts of freedom and practice. To be more specific, the syntagm “all that exists” combined with criticism, gives both an active and a social meaning . Petrović ironically assesses the situation in our society of the time, where “there is no prejudice”, so no “limitations”, “exceptions” or “permissions” for criticism are necessary. One might say that criticism is the essence of Petrović’s philosophical opus, because he positions himself as a critic of the dogmatic philosophy and politics, which appropriate monopoly over criticism. This is precisely why it is necessary to emphasize the importance of Gajo Petrović, and why the meaning of criticism of “criticism as a social privilege” and power, is still valid today. (shrink)

Arthur Schopenhauer , filozof postkantovske tradicije, u svojim se djelima Svijet kao volja i predodžba i O temelju morala u velikoj mjeri bavio i etičkim pitanjima. Pri tome je bilo nemoguće zaobići Kantovo etičko naučavanje, koje je Schopenhauer podvrgnuo detaljnoj kritici. Schopenhauer je Kantu spočitavao rigorizam u etici, koji je za njega neprihvatljiv s obzirom da predstavlja čisti formalizam, a ne govori ništa o zbiljskim motivima koji pokreću ljudsko ponašanje. Za te Kantove odredbe Schopenhauer je pronašao mjesto unutar uređenja pravne (...) države, jer se pravne države ne tiču motivi koji nekoga navode na određeno ponašanje, već isključivo formalno zadovoljenje načela pravednosti.Arthur Schopenhauer , the philosopher of postKantian tradition, in his writings The World as Will and Representation and On the Basis of Morality, has been dealing a lot with ethical questions. In that way, it was impossible to skirt from Kant’s ethical teaching, which Schopenhauer submitted to detailed criticism. Schopenhauer reproached him his ethical rigorism, which was unacceptable for Schopenhauer, knowing the fact that it represents pure formalism, but it does not tell anything on real motives that are driving force of a human behaviour. These Kant’s instructions were placed by Schopenhauer in the frame of establishing legal state, because the system in itself is not considered of human motives as being a reason for certain behaviour, while the system is exclusively considered of a formal fulfillment of a principle of justice. (shrink)