The emergence of self-awareness in the course of human development is indispensably associated with interaction between self and others in terms of Interpersonal Stimuli (Kasuga, 1987), which relates the quality of interaction per se. Self is considered as an organism of functioning system supported by six subsystems as a whole. The dysfunction of self -system as an organism is a precursor of collapse of self- existence. According to system theory, noxious outer stimuli from dysfunctional family and those stemmed from international crisis between country and country jeopardize the self-existence and ultimately world peace. A logic or theory of coexistence is, therefore, the most important problems for philosophers and psychologists to pursue in the information technology (IT) dominating present day world. It is suggested here that Taxonomy of Similarity is significant to establish the theory of coexistence. For the purpose of seeking eternal world peace,the significance of Immanuel Kant’s Eternal Peace Theory (1795), and the correspondence (1932) between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud concerning” Why human involves in war ? “ have been cited and reevaluated in the present day context to pave the way for a better future.
Some commentators say that Locke late in his life finds it impossible to discover the law of nature through the reason and turns instead to the revelation which is in the opposite of the reason. In this paper I try to refute such view. Locke holds that there are three laws to judge people’s actions. They are the Divine Law,the Civil Law and the law of Opinion or Reputation (hereafter LOR). Locke thinks that LOR coincides with the Divine Law which means the law of nature. So we can deduce the content of the law of nature from LOR through the reason. Therefore,Locke does not abandon the idea of law of nature discovered through the reason.
Although Adam Smith did not think that utility is the main principle in moral judgment, it is a key concept in understanding the whole picture of his moral philosophy. This paper shows that his concept of utility has two levels: the level of man and the level of God. Smith thought that human nature has utility at the level of God, and that the existence of this God can be proved through the utilitarian argument from design. Smith rightly recognized that this view of “final cause”makes a contribution to the explanation of “efficient cause” in moral philosophy.
It is widely admitted that moral judgments are universalizable, but whether this universalizability is formal or subjective is still in controversy. In this paper, I will investigate R.M.Hare’s argument for the formality of the universalizability. It is often said that his attempt fails because he derives a subjective moral conclusion like utilitarianism from that principle. However, Hare does not derive the moral conclusion from universalizability alone. Rather, what attaches morality to Hare’s utilitarianism is the concept of prescriptivity and rationality, not universalizability. In conclusion, I will vindicate Hare’s theory, but at the same time point out a problem of the normativity of rationality that is included in his theory.
In his Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy, Rawls investigates J.S. Mill's moral philosophy. In order to secure liberty and equality, Mill's utilitarianism requires secondary principles of society including the principle of liberty. Rawls argues that they have substantially the same content as the principles of justice and the idea of public reason in Rawls's “justice as fairness.” But if so, why does he have to criticize utilitarianism? I address the question by mentioning Rawls's distinction between distributive and allocative justice. He seems to think that utilitarians tend to consider social justice as the latter and ignore the former, although Mill does not.
By using J. L. Austin's speech act theory, various views on the relationship between law and liberty can be categorized into two types. Illocutionary force concerns the establishment of relationships among members, whereas perlocutionary force concerns the regulation of certain actions. Phillip Pettit's idea of freedom as discursive control, illocutionary and republican by its nature, seems to be sociologically more plausible than liberal ones. However, it is freedom as noninterference that enables man to move his discursive identity from one community to another. Moreover, Pettit seems to overlook the fact that in order to keep good discursive relationships or to save “face,” we sometimes disregard meaningfulness or truthfulness in speech.