多元論
出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
多元論（たげんろん）とは、総合的には多様性を容認・肯定するという立場である。 この概念は多岐に亘る分野において様々な意味で用いられる。 政治では、国民の興味関心や信念の多様性を認めることは、近代民主主義の最も重要な特徴である。また科学の世界でこの概念は、複数の方法・仮説・視点が正当又は可能である、という見方を意味することが多い。この姿勢が科学の発展における重大な要素である、と言っても良いかも知れない。また、多元論は宗教 や 哲学の分野においても様々な意味で用いられる。
目次 |
[編集] 政治における多元論
民主的な政治では多元論は異なった関心、信念、および生活様式の平和共存を可能にする指導原則である。全体主義 や 排他主義とは異なり、多元論は利害の多様性を認識し、社会を構成する人々が誠実な交渉に携わることによってその相違点を許容することが必要不可欠である、という見方をする。
多元論を支持する最も早い議論の一つは、 ジェームズ・マディスン の ザ・フェデラリスト 第10篇に見られる。 Madison feared that faction would lead to in-fighting in the new American republic and devotes this paper to questioning how best to avoid such an occurrence. He posits that in order to avoid faction, it is best to allow many competing factions to prevent any one dominating the political system. This relies, to a degree, on a series of disturbances changing the influences of groups so as to avoid institutional dominance and ensure competition.
There are some objections to this 多元論のモデル however. Critics argue that groups need a high level of resources and the support of patrons in order to be able to contend for influence and this observation formed the basis for the theory of elite 多元論 which was advanced by writers such as E・E・シャットシュナイダー who wrote that 'all groups sing with an upper-class bias'.
[編集] 新多元論とコーポラティズム
While 多元論 as a political theory of the state and policy formation gained its most traction during the 1950s and 1960s in America, many scholars argued that the theory was too simplistic (see Connolly (1969) The Challenge to Pluralist Theory) - leading to the reformulation of neo-多元論, and that it did not apply to Westminsterian democracies or the European context - leading to the application of Corporatism. Charles E. Lindblom who is seen as positing a strong neopluralist argument, still attribtued primacy to the competition between interest groups in the policy process; but recognised the disproportionate influence business interests have in the policy process.
コーポラティズム is the idea that a few select interest groups are actually (often formally) involved in the policy formulation process, to the exclusion of the myriad other 'interest groups'. For example, Trade Unions and Major Sectoral Business Associations are often consulted about (if not the drivers of) specific policies.
[編集] 多元論と公益
多元論 is connected with the hope that this process of 紛争 and ダイアログ will lead to a definition and subsequent realization of the common good that is best for all members of society. This implies that in a pluralistic framework, the common good is not given アプリオリ. Instead, the scope and content of the 公益can only be found out in and after 交渉のプロセス (a posteriori).
Consequently, the 公益does not, according to pluralists, coincide with the position of any one cohesive group or organization.
Still, one group may eventually manage to establish its own view as the generally accepted view, but only as the result of the negotiation process within the pluralistic framework. This implies that, as a general rule, the "operator" of a truly pluralistic framework, i.e. the state in a pluralistic society, must not be biased: it may not take sides with any one group, give undue privileges to one group and discriminate against another one.
多元論の支持者はこの交渉プロセスが公益を達成する最も優れた方法として挙げられるものが議論である。つまり since 全ての者が can participate in power and decision-making (and can claim part of the ownership of the results of exercising power) there can also be widespread participation and a greater feeling of commitment from society members, and therefore better outcomes. By contrast, an 独裁主義か寡頭政治による社会, where 政権 is concentrated and decisions are made by few members, forestalls this possibility.
Proponents in contemporary political philosophy of such a view include アイザイア・バーリン, Stuart Hampshire and Bernard Williams. And earlier version of political 多元論 was a strong current in the formation of modern social democracy, with theorists such as ハロルド・ラスキ and G. D. H. Cole, as well as other leading members of the British Fabian Society. Horace Kallen coined the term cultural 多元論 to express the condition of a democatic nation which sustained, and was sustained by, many cultural traditions.
Note, however, that political philosophers such as Charles Blattberg have argued that negotiation can at best compromise rather than realise the common good. Doing the latter is said to require engaging in "conversation" instead, room for which is made within what Blattberg calls a patriotic, as distinct from pluralist, politics.
[編集] 多元論の条件
For 多元論のため to function and to be successful in defining the common good, all groups have to agree to a minimal consensus regarding shared values, which tie the different groups to society, and shared rules for conflict resolution between the groups:
最も重要な価値はis that of 相互の 尊重 and 許容, so that 異なったグループcan 共存する and 相互に作用する without anyone being forced to 同化 to anyone else's position in 対立 that will 自然に arise out of 分岐ing interests and positions. これらの対立は相互の理解や妥協のために導く対話によってのみ永続的に解決することができる。
多元論の誤用としては、文化多元主義、文化相対主義、無政府資本主義、ポスト・モダニズムなどが例に挙げられる。多元論's tolerance for difference, its fostering of diversity, its promotion of different individuals' pursuit of variable modes of life and their expression of different cultural values does not conflate all cultures as more or less equal (multiculturalism), nor is it indifferent to some cultural differences that are unacceptable to social standards of decency, e.g., genital mutilation (cultural relativism), nor is its without cognizance of the need for social institutions to provide "space" for diversity to meet minimum standards of decency and order (anarcho-capitalism), nor is it silent or uncritical of inferior standards and values (post-modernism), but engages different social and personal values in a critical, but respectful, dialectic of reciprocal evaluation. Coercive action is used only when another mode of life or cultural expression causes harm, otherwise it engages in a dialogue of critical evaluation of different modes and expressions through persuasion. Unlike many of the misapplications, 多元論's tolerance is intolerant of intolerance (which is self-defeating and anti-pluralistic).
To illustrate, anarcho-capitalism takes self-ownership as a shared a priori value. Derived from this come the principles of non-aggression and private property. To resolve conflicts over the use of property, both-benefit voluntary trade is conducted according to subjective theory of value. From the single shared value of self-ownership, voluntary trade thus enables individuals with differing values to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.
[編集] 多元論とサブシディアリティ
しかしながら、規則及び価値についての必要な一致は、不必要に価値決定の社会内の異なったグループや個人に限るべきではない。権限委譲の原則に従い、一般的な枠組みの中で、規制される必要のないあらゆるものは、従属するグループや最大限の自由を保証するために個人によって決定するために残されるべきである。
最終的な結果において、多元論はこのように社会全体や自身の所属するグループから強制されるのではなく、彼ら自身のための価値と真実 を決定するための個人の権利を意味する。
[編集] 科学界における多元論
It can be argued that the pluralistic nature of the scientific process is a major factor in the rapid growth of knowledge. In turn, an increase in knowledge arguably leads to increased human welfare due to, for example, greater 生産性, 経済成長 and better 医療技術.
[編集] 哲学における多元論
哲学において、多元論は思想の自由市場と同様に解釈される。 名目上、多くの異なった学派は、更に高度で理論的な考え方によって導かれることにより互いに影響されることがあった。
以上については二元論、非実在論を参照されたい。
[編集] 法律における多元論
Basic thought:
- many things that lack the formal status law fulfill a similar function
- unwritten rules
- should these be considered as "law" as well?
Legal 多元論 allows for moral laws that are unwritten as formal laws. These laws include religious accommodations that are unjustified to receive a full pedigree and hence in the eyes of a positivist, law.
Sources of such pluralist laws include the Koran, Sunna, Ijma ... whereas most modern western nation-states take the basis of their legal system from the Christian superpowers of old (i.e. Britain, France, etc), which is also why moral laws found in the Bible have actually been made fully-fledged laws, with the initial grund-norm set far back in legal history, hence fulfilling the priority of both the positivists and the naturalists.
Broaldy any country that has more than one legal system could be considered to be following a legal 多元論. among many countries that had come under colonialism there exists plurality of law. some of which were guided by the western law paradigm. While people living in countries had their own way of organising the society there emerged a situation where their practices were in conflict with that of the modern western laws.
[編集] 関連項目
[編集] 脚注
- A Pluralistic Universe, James, William (1909).
In political philosophy and ethics:
- Morality and Conflict, Hampshire, Stuart (1983).
- From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics, Blattberg, Charles (2000).
- Liberty, Berlin, Isaiah (2002).
- In the Beginning Was the Deed, Williams, Bernard (2005).
| 心の哲学のトピックス | |
|---|---|
| 概念 | 意識 - クオリア - 心身問題 - ハード・プロブレム - 付随性 - 因果的閉鎖性 - 自由意志 - 素朴心理学 - 消去主義 |
| 現行モデル | 同一説- 機能主義 - 相互作用説 - 随伴現象説 - 並行説 |
| 古典的モデル | 唯物論 - 唯心論 - 汎心論 - 機械論 - 生気論 - 一元論 - 二元論 - 多元論 - モナドロジー |
| 思考実験 | チューリング・テスト - 中国語の部屋 - 哲学的ゾンビ - スワンプマン - 水槽の脳 - マリーの部屋 |
| 人物（日本国外） | デイヴィッド・チャーマーズ - ジョン・サール - ダニエル・デネット - フランシス・クリック&クリストフ・コッホ -ジェラルド・イーデルマン&ジュリオ・トノーニ |
| 人物（日本） | 信原幸弘 - 柴田正良 - 河野哲也 - 西脇与作 / 前野隆司 - 茂木健一郎 - 郡司ペギオ幸夫 |
| 関連項目 | 理論物理学 - 脳 - 神経科学 - 認知科学 - 心理学 - 進化心理学 - 現象学 |
