Guy Haarscher

Tolerance of the intolerant

In the first part of the essay, the author analyzes the difference and the relation between two different ideas of toleration, the passive and the active meaning. While the former is related to opportunistic and prudential purposes, the second is grounded in an ethical framework and presupposes the individuals freedom of conscience. This second meaning appears to be very important in a multicultural society: On its basis it is possible to develop toleration both as a plurality of contexts of choice and as a priority rule between conscience and culture in Rawlsian terms. In the second part, starting from the case of O. Preminger Institut v. Austria, the author examines the relation between this idea of toleration and freedom of speech.

ROLE OF RHETORIC IN RULE OF LAW: RHETORIC OF THE LAWYER AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION

The article focuses on the difference between strategic rhetoric and philosophical conversation. It first tries to distinguish between sophistical manipulation and valid strategic argumentation. In order to do that, the author tries to give a new meaning to the old Aristotelian tripartition between logos, ethos, and pathos. Then, he uses Chaim Perelman’s theory of argumentation to show that the standard of rationality in practical reasoning is a specific one. After having clarified the very concept of strategic argumentation, the author distinguishes it from the notion of philosophical conversation. He tries to show that if the latter is completely replaced by the former, the danger exists that victimization and morals “ a la carte ” will generate a defeat of critical thought.

Can Human Rights Be “Contextualized”?

There is today a globalization of constitutional values, in particular human rights and the rule of law.1 Globalization is more than financial deregulation (capital can be found everywhere in the world: it can circulate, enter countries—and also “leave” them, which is a condition for a safe “entrance”); and more than the globalization of communications through television (cable and satellite), mobile phones, the new technologies, the Internet. There is a cultural globalization and an economic-industrial globalization characterized by the domination of the United States through entertainment, the way of informing people, of eating (McDonalds), etc. To say the least, these two processes of globalization are often considered (with resentment) the export of a dominant “Western” paradigm.