• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.135-165
• /
• 2010

In this paper, I explore Turner's argument against libertarianism. He claims that libertarians can't be compatible with naturalism, without abandoning the Consequence Argument. In order to support this claim, he proposes the Supervenience Argument. According to him, the Supervenience Argument can't be rejected without abandoning either the Consequence Argument or naturalism. But I show that libertarians don't have to accept his Supervenience Argument, even though they stick to the Consequence Argument, and that even though they accept his Supervenience Argument, they don't have to abandon the freedom of agent. For these reasons, I conclude that Turner's argument against libertarianism turns out a failure.

• Korean Journal of Legislative Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.209-235
• /
• 2009

This articles examines a war of history among American conservatives over the survival strategies of the Republican Party. The traditionalists 'construct' and employ a history originating from Goldwater's libertarianism for criticizing the Bush administration and calling for the restoration of conservative principles of limited, small government. The reformists counter with a history of repeated failures of building "conservatism of the working class."

• Journal of the Korean Geographical Society
• /
• v.40 no.6 s.111
• /
• pp.671-693
• /
• 2005

This paper is to explore critically environmentalism, especially in terms of environmental justice, suggested or implied in theory of liberalism which has been the ideological foundation of contemporary society. It begins with a brief look at liberal perspective in a broad sense, then interprets in-depth the classical liberalism of J. Locke, libertarianism (esp. R. Nozick) and utilitarianism (including cost-benefit analysis) from the environmental point of view. And finally it considers liberal pluralism and other alternative theories of pluralism, especially communitarianism (esp M. Walzer), postmodern pluralism (esp. I. Young), and cultural pluralism (esp. C. Taylor) in order to overcome limitations of liberal environmentalism and to find out some clues for theory of environmental justice. In conclusion, this paper argues that we need to transfer from liberalism (including liberal pluralism) to critical pluralism in oder to develop a proper understanding of environmental problems and to conceptualize a desirable theory of environmental justice.

• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.237-270
• /
• 2013

Determinism and compatibilism have thought that libertarianism contradicts the scientific view. This paper demonstrates that the hypothesis that free will exists does not cause any problems and contradictions, while maintaining pro-scientific view. Rather, determinism lacks scientific and demonstrative bases. At first, I reject dualistic self by assuming identity theory of the self and physical body & brain. Free will is a functional concept or property that can have multiple realization. Therefore we can recognize whether aliens or robots have free will through observation on their acts. 'Free will' is a functional kinds term like 'digestion'. As we know we have digestive function, we can know that we have free will even before knowing the necessity of its existence by understanding micro structure of human free will. The judgement that an individual has free will function depends on whether it has particular actions. Those actions are controlling and restraining actions in context, predicting future, making elaborate conditional sentences, etc. Real being of free will is the physical occupant of the function that makes those actions. Determinism is based on various kinds of misconceptions and misunderstandings. Determinists often confuse necessity of physical law and determinism. Another decisive misunderstanding is that free will postulates same conditions and different results from the same point of time. However, free will postulates that the two points of time are different. Because determinism is unnecessary redundant hypothesis influenced by religions, according to Ockham's Razor, determinism should be eliminated.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.123
• /
• pp.57-86
• /
• 2012

Many contemporary philosophers argue that modern philosophy is only the philosophy being imprisoned in subject and consciousness without communicating other subjects with language. They criticize that it is solipsistic. Today, those who are taking part in the communication theory, hermeneutics, and de-constructivism are trying to overcome this problem. The practical philosophers, especially those who advocate communintarianism criticize that modern libertarianism is not free from the isolated autonomy and breaks the solidarity of the traditional community with treating formally others. They criticize Kant's philosophy in the same way. But it is unreasonable. Because Kant was not the philosopher who pursued the same philosophy of subjectivity and liberalism as the earlier modern philosophers pursued. He tried to criticize its limits and overcome them. Especially he did not remain within the modern subjectivity, but rather tried to come up with the inter-subjectivity communicating between subjects. He showed this side through the 'sensus communis'. He thought of a judgement of taste as an effect resulting from the free play between imagination and understanding, and postulated the 'sensus communis' as a ground of the universal validity of this judgement. Therefore this 'sensus communis' is the subjective principle of a judgement of taste. Furthermore, he did not treat this 'sensus communis' merely as a self-relation of a subject, but rather developed it into an communicative relation among subjects. This position of Kant enables us to seek the harmony between the aesthetic sphere and social-moral sphere, and to overcome the conflicts between the autonomy of the liberalism and the solidarity of the communitarianism. Especially, his 'sensus communis' can be developed into the 'critical hermeneutics' and the 'relational autonomy'. Therefore his 'sensus communis' has the possibility to overcome the negative points of the traditional community and the modern community, and to overcome the conflicts among the isolated selves occurring in today's society. Hence Kant's 'sensus communis' has still the important values in the contemporary philosophy, especially in the practical philosophy being now discussed over the relation between autonomy and solidarity.