Violence as a Philosophical Problem
| Název práce v češtině: | Násilí jako filozofický problém |
|---|---|
| Název v anglickém jazyce: | Violence as a Philosophical Problem |
| Klíčová slova: | Violence; Philosophy; Ethics and morals; Justice |
| Klíčová slova anglicky: | Violence; Philosophy; Ethics and morals; Justice |
| Akademický rok vypsání: | 2017/2018 |
| Typ práce: | diplomová práce |
| Jazyk práce: | angličtina |
| Ústav: | Katedra politologie (23-KP) |
| Vedoucí / školitel: | Janusz Salamon, Ph.D. |
| Řešitel: | skrytý - zadáno vedoucím/školitelem |
| Datum přihlášení: | 22.05.2018 |
| Datum zadání: | 22.05.2018 |
| Datum a čas obhajoby: | 18.06.2019 07:30 |
| Místo konání obhajoby: | Jinonice - U Kříže 8, Praha 5, J3014, Jinonice - místn. č. 3014 |
| Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: | 13.05.2019 |
| Datum proběhlé obhajoby: | 18.06.2019 |
| Oponenti: | Mgr. Jakub Franěk, Ph.D. |
| Kontrola URKUND: | |
| Zásady pro vypracování |
| According to the FSV standards for M.A. theses |
| Seznam odborné literatury |
| Coady, C. A. J. "The Idea of Violence." Morality and Political Violence, March 1986, 21-42. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811586.004.
Coady, C. A. J. Morality and Political Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Magnani, Lorenzo. Understanding Violence The Intertwining of Morality, Religion and Violence: A Philosophical Stance. Berlin: Springer Berlin, 2013. SEN, AMARTYA. PEACE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY. S.l.: SYNERGY BOOKS INDIA, 2012. Vorobej, Mark. The Concept of Violence. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016. Widerquist, Karl, and Grant S. McCall. "NASTY AND BRUTISH? AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE VIOLENCE HYPOTHESIS." In Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy, 132-75. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017. |
| Předběžná náplň práce |
| My thesis will focus on the following general research questions: Violence as a philosophical problem. Is violence a neutral tool, or is it inherently moral or immoral? Is violence always acceptable or are there parameters for using violence? Does violence include acts that do not utilize direct force? Why do certain societies accept some violence while others do not?
Working hypotheses: Hypothesis #1: Violence is inherent to human society Hypothesis #2: Violence can often be legitimate and justified. Hypothesis #3: Western society does not hold that violence is wrong, only that some violence is wrong. Methodology: I will approach this topic as a philosophical paper in the analytic tradition, examining violence from a meta-ethical approach, as well as an applied approach. The paper will include an analysis of both the academic and colloquial language used to describe and define violence and and how these notions evolved. Then I will relate that language to large-scale examples of violence of various categories, and decide whether or not these accepted descriptions of violence reflect these scenarios or not. If not (which I expect there to be a disconnect), I will assert a solution for consolidating the divide between societal ideas of violence and societal practices of violence. While the paper will be of the analytic tradition, I will consult sources from both continental and analytic streams of thought, as well as work by some sociologists and political theorists. Outline: Introduction Definitions of violence Narrow and wide definitions and their justifications An analysis of the language and terminology used Exploring the parameters of definitions What can then be included and named as violence? Is some violence justified, or if it is justified, is it something else? General cases of violence Traditional – Individual physical harm: murder, torture Political – State and large scale violence: war, genocide Contemporary – New ideas of violence: displacement, language, exclusion Marrying language and reality What are the inconsistencies between what the language tells us about violence, and societal practices and attitudes toward violence? Conclusions Bibliography |
| Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce |
| My thesis will focus on the following general research questions: Violence as a philosophical problem. Is violence a neutral tool, or is it inherently moral or immoral? Is violence always acceptable or are there parameters for using violence? Does violence include acts that do not utilize direct force? Why do certain societies accept some violence while others do not?
Working hypotheses: Hypothesis #1: Violence is inherent to human society Hypothesis #2: Violence can often be legitimate and justified. Hypothesis #3: Western society does not hold that violence is wrong, only that some violence is wrong. Methodology: I will approach this topic as a philosophical paper in the analytic tradition, examining violence from a meta-ethical approach, as well as an applied approach. The paper will include an analysis of both the academic and colloquial language used to describe and define violence and and how these notions evolved. Then I will relate that language to large-scale examples of violence of various categories, and decide whether or not these accepted descriptions of violence reflect these scenarios or not. If not (which I expect there to be a disconnect), I will assert a solution for consolidating the divide between societal ideas of violence and societal practices of violence. While the paper will be of the analytic tradition, I will consult sources from both continental and analytic streams of thought, as well as work by some sociologists and political theorists. Outline: Introduction Definitions of violence Narrow and wide definitions and their justifications An analysis of the language and terminology used Exploring the parameters of definitions What can then be included and named as violence? Is some violence justified, or if it is justified, is it something else? General cases of violence Traditional – Individual physical harm: murder, torture Political – State and large scale violence: war, genocide Contemporary – New ideas of violence: displacement, language, exclusion Marrying language and reality What are the inconsistencies between what the language tells us about violence, and societal practices and attitudes toward violence? Conclusions Bibliography |