The fair and the right
20
May
The subjects previously treated about peace almost inevitably lead
us to the right, this reminds us of the work of Norberto Bobbio: The Age of Rights.
The hypothesis of his work is: we are in the era of rights due to the paradox of excess power that it created conditions for nuclear war of extermination against the excess of powerlessness that condemns the massive human hunger, but we could tell by extension the war and more recently into exile or exodus, exile without upheld.
The challenge put in terms of ethics of the Other is not the right reasons, or one of the alternatives that we propose is to create a ontoética, but how could we guarantee them?
It is the concern of many politicians, thinkers and agents of peace, which is the safest way to secure them, it is useless to make solemn declarations and then violate.
Bobbio criticizes in his work the ineffectiveness of such rights protection, “abstract dogmas, metaphysical definitions, axioms more or less literary, or more or less false, sometimes vague, sometimes contradictory” (Bobbio, 1991)
Faced with this ineffectiveness, what the real problem in relation to fundamental rights, ie legally the procedural instrument would be practical for an end to what was created.
In legal terms would require a hermeneutics about the right stuff? It is a question for the lawyers, but would like to respond in a practical way, using onto-ethtics.
It would require international bodies, independent of economic, political and ideological to guarantee the right to manifestations of “singularities”, why minority classification, subjectivities, beliefs and nations seem insufficient.
What some people need to survive, what they consider ideal and how it can establish the peaceful coexistence of intersubjectivities? Are these issues.
