Papers by Berfin Kart
POSSEIBLE (Journal of Thinking), 2019
The social injustice either in one country or in the world constitutes a major challenge for the ... more The social injustice either in one country or in the world constitutes a major challenge for the politics. The social and economic injustice comes at the first rank among the reasons of the terror attacks, of the wars and civil wars and migrations. Social injustice that is not a problem for only poor and developing countries, but also for developed countries causes various problems of human rights from which refugees are affected more than others. The refugee crises that the world encounters today is the most striking fact which demonstrates that the social injustice is also a problem of human rights. Just as the terrorist attacks and civil wars in some countries, also the migration from poor countries towards the developed ones bring along different human right violations. The refugee problem as a global problem is a special human rights problem we confront today all over the world besides the other human right abuses caused by the poverty and discrimination. And problems of refugees who had to leave their countries because of political and economic reasons and the problems of citizens who live in their own countries are not same; and to protect the human dignity and vulnerability in the poor living conditions of refugees is more difficult than others.
Beyond being a problem of national income distribution or unequal distribution of wealth, the social injustice is arisen from the fact that the social, economic and political rights –the rights granted– are not guaranteed as to preserve the basic rights of all citizens equally. Thus, social injustice is a problem which leads exploitation, inequality and injustice. Social injustice comes out not because of the unequal distribution of what “exists”, as a popular wisdom, but because of the unequal “distribution” of the penuries (Kuçuradi, 2013a: 16). Although its being a problem that can be cleared without waiting for the development of poor countries, the social injustice is perceived today as a problem related to the income distribution, or the unfair distribution of income. However, the “social injustice appears as a problem related to all basic rights which can be protected only directly” (Kuçuradi, 2013a:12).
Then the problem of social injustice is primarily a problem of demarcation. The bound to be drawn is in relation of basic rights like nutrition, health, education, labor and etc. which are requests of presuppositions which designate the actualization of human potentials; to the social, economic and political rights granted by state and preserved by means of some public establishments. Social injustice is a problem of human rights which arises in case of the fact that this demarcation is not accomplished properly –in other words, according to the principle of equality– for each citizen. In other words, it arises when the given life conditions are below the level of preserving the “human value” or dignity for every one. The social injustice in one country or in the world leads inevitably to the violation of human dignity and value.
“ ‘Human dignity’ denotes the awareness of the value of the human being... Single human rights are practical implications of human dignity. They demand from all individuals a kind of treatment for all individuals, which protects the value of the human being” (Kuçuradi, 2013b: 101). The concept of human rights is grounded on human dignity. The concept of “dignity” finds its contemporary meaning in the expression “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” which is expressed at the beginning of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this first article of the Declaration, it is articulated that the “all members of the human family is equal in respect of dignity and rights”. It can be said that a conception human “dignity” free from the hierarchal aspects and reasons like race, ancestry, gender, health condition etc. and which is supposed to be equal in each human being (Sulmasy, 2012: 17) and inherent/intrinsic in each human person would be more suitable than a hereditary, attributed, denominational, developing, social and relative “dignity” for the human rights. When we think the human dignity as not only a value for grounding the human rights, but also a necessity in providing and preserving the human dignity and rights, the human dignity seems to be a very vulnerable and fragile value.
The concept of “vulnerability” has come to the fore since rationality and autonomy are considered as the specific nature of man, and the critique that the concept of man as an autonomous subject which excludes some people , as kids, elders and mentally retarded people from the determination of human dignity. The concept of “vulnerability” is raised as a new basis and is used more frequently in the discussions of human rights as a result of the problems faced in grounding human rights on the human dignity. It is related to the capacity of humanistic pain, being exposure to danger and fencelessness in respect of its relation to the humanity, “indicates a capacity of being open to the world and to any wounding related to something earthly” (Turner, 2006: 28). It is used to express the “sufferer” or “disadvantageous” people, was determined as the “danger of being damaged” (Goodin, 1985: 110). The concept of vulnerability has been more important in context of preserving the basic rights as well. We can observe its gradually increasing appearance and its effect on the decisions of European Court of Human Rights in European Social Committee, Council of Europe and European Union Law. The concept has been usedmore frequently at the decisions of European Court of Human Rights as well. To the concept of vulnerability is referred for the victims of torture and sexual assault, for the people who are mentally and physically disable, children, old people, for refugees who faced discrimination and oppression in their countries sometimes only because of belonging to a different race and ethnic origin from the majority.
The refugees who had to leave their country due to civil wars or political and economical reasons are also considered in these vulnerable groups. As the disables, children and old people, mostly the refugees are facing with inhuman living conditions. Like the people both child and disable or both belong to a minority and disable, some refugees as children and disabled ones also face with multiple vulnerability, and to supply them a humane living conditions and to protect their dignity is more difficult than the others. The deprivation of refugees from the social and economic rights from which citizens of the host country enjoy is the main reason for their multiple vulnerability.
The problem of social injustice is a problem of demarcation related to the relation of basic rights as nutrition, health and education with the social, economic and cultural rights provided by a state by means of some regulations and organizations. Social injustice emerges when the limits of these rights are not drawn duly by the state for all citizens based on the principle of equality- and when the living conditions provided remain under the level required for the full protection of human value and dignity.
The multiple vulnerability of refugees who had to leave their own land is as a result of social injustice and civil wars. In this paper, just after tackling the global social injustice and its results, the concepts of “vulnerability” and “human dignity” will be clarified first separately, then in their relations with each other. By this way, it will be tried to clarify whether human dignity involves vulnerability in itself.
In this paper, going from the concept of social injustice, I will try identify which rights are basic rights, which are not, and to demonstrate the relationship between social injustice and human rights. Additionally, I will try to Show up that the refugee problem is not only a economical and political problem, but also an ethical and philosophical problem. Given that every person is a potential refugee, we should concentrate more on the ways of securing a humane life to all refugees as all other vulnerable groups of people.
Key Words: Social Injustice, Human Rights, Refugee(ness), Vulnerability, Multiple Vulnerability.
ViraVerita, 2018
Ongoing territorial conflicts and civil wars besides poverty are the main reasons of ‘refugee cri... more Ongoing territorial conflicts and civil wars besides poverty are the main reasons of ‘refugee crisis’. We are facing today a steadily increasing human flow in the world. Not only territorial battles or civil wars; but also social, political, economic, cultural conditions of some countries and the fear of persecution or oppression on the minorities force people to leave their country. People who are leaving their countries are seeking asylum in the safe countries because of life threating conditions of their home countries. The global refugee problem turns to be a ‘refugee crisis’.
The problems of refugees in a host country are not same with problems of rights of citizens of host country; and to protect the dignity and vulnerability of refugees is more difficult than others. Refugees who lost their citizenship rights and left their homeland face with severe ethical problems and human rights violations. Refugees are regarded among the vulnerable groups as children, disables, elders, because of their living and political conditions and their being deprived of basic rights.
The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the multiple vulnerability of refugees such as child, woman, elder and disable. In this paper, I will try to demonstrate that the refugee problem is not only a juridical or political problem, but also an ethical and philosophical problem.
Keywords: Refugeehood; Vulnerability; Multiple Vulnerability; Ethics, Human Dignity; Human Rights.
ABSTRACT:
The question that does ethics have priority to politics or does politics actually need ... more ABSTRACT:
The question that does ethics have priority to politics or does politics actually need ethical principles has been one of main question of political philosophy and it has been responded mostly negatively and believed that man must choose only one of them either politics or ethics, but they can exist together peacefully in one person or the State. To clarify the connection between ethics and politics we have to raise the question, namely what is the aim of politics. Aristotle tackles this question in his Nichomachean Ethics in detail and shows the necessary connection among them. Aristotle considers ethics a part of politics, as a mean which politics needs in reaching its aims. According to Aristotle, the main concern of politics is to acquire the citizen virtuous character and so to make them good citizens. Contemporary politics is following the paths of Aristotle's analysis, either acknowledging or opposing his ideas. The challenge in politics today is the question that is virtue a precondition for well-being of the citizens?
ÖZET:
Etiğin politikayı önceleyip öncelemediği ya da politikanın etik ilkelere ihtiyacı olup olmadığı sorusu siyaset felsefesinin ana sorularından biri olmuştur. Soru genellikle olumsuz bir biçimde yanıtlanmış ve politikacıların bunlardan birini seçmesi gerektiğine inanılmıştır. Etik ve politika arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklığa kavuşturmak için öncelikle " politikanın amacı nedir? " sorusunun yanıtlanması gerekmektedir. Nikomakhos'a Etik'te Aristoteles etiği politikanın bir parçası, politikanın amaçlarına ulaşması için gereken bir araç olarak görür. Aristoteles'e göre politikanın asıl amacı yurttaşların erdemli kişiler olmalarını sağlayarak onları iyi yurttaşlar kılmaktır. Çağdaş siyaset felsefesi Aristoteles'in düşüncelerini onaylayarak ya da ona karşı çıkarak onu izler. Bugün siyasette yanıt aranması gereken soru, Aristoteles'in dediği gibi erdemin, mutluluğun ya da iyi-olmanın bir önkoşulu olup olmadığıdır.
ABSTRACT It is necessary to describe the concept of human nature due to ambiguity of its content,... more ABSTRACT It is necessary to describe the concept of human nature due to ambiguity of its content, and to the lack of concensus on its description. In this context, the concepts of " human " and " nature " should be handled separately and " What does human nature involve? " " Is there one human nature or are there more than one? " " Is it possible to separate human nature a s primary and secondary, the one is owned naturally from born and the other one is acquired by actions? " are the questions that should be answered. 20 th century philosophers have taken the developments in science and technology, protection of human health and the new methods that are offered for human survival into consideration and added interrogation of human essence as a manufactured presence to the interrogation of human essence as a natural presence. The effects of contemporary biotechnological and genetic developments on the future of human nature are tackled in Habermas' The Future of Human Nature. In this context, the aim of the essay is to examine contemporary philosopher's ideas and to deal with interrogation of essence of human nature since Protogoras and also to examine Habermas' ideas which are accepted as the milestones of this interrogation by making references to philosophers of Ancient Greece and Age of Enlightenment.
Conference Presentations by Berfin Kart
"Her başkaldırı edimi bir değeri çağırır sessizce… Her başkaldırı bir suçsuzluk özlemidir, varlığ... more "Her başkaldırı edimi bir değeri çağırır sessizce… Her başkaldırı bir suçsuzluk özlemidir, varlığa yönelen bir sesleniştir. Ama bir gün olur özlem silahları ele alır, tüm suçluluğu, yani öldürmeyi ve şiddeti omuzlarına yüklenir. Böylece bayağı başkaldırılar, kral öldüren devrimler, bir de yirminci yüzyıl devrimleri, gittikçe daha tam bir kurtuluşu benimsemeye kalktıkları oranda büyüyen bir suçluluğu benimsemişlerdir" 1 .
Man decided to put an end living as a slave of nature and tried to have control on the nature by ... more Man decided to put an end living as a slave of nature and tried to have control on the nature by means of natural sciences and technology. Knowledge or science has been considered only a means of having control on the nature. Man's interaction with nature by means of technology has caused some practical problems called " ecological problems. " The awareness of this problem, dangerous enough to pose a threat for life on earth day by day, has increased the interest in philosophy and especially one of its oldest branches, in ethics. It has been thought that ethics, whose object is man and his actions, may shed light to the ecological problems created by man. In this context, as a field of research dealing with man's ethical responsibilities for his non-humane natural environment, environmental ethics or environmental philosophy has become a field of study that discusses the questions such as " What is man's responsibility for nature? " , " Is this responsibility for nature or for the people who are living now and who will live in the future? " , " If this responsibility is for nature or ecosystem, why is man responsible for a non-human being? " With the answers to these above-mentioned questions, it is tried to clarify what is man's ethical responsibility in terms of ecological theories which are classified as anthropocentric or ecocentric theories. In this paper, the problem of Hydroelectrical Power Plant will be discussed whether man's ethical responsibility is for nature and natural beings or for man himself only. In this context, it will be attempted to ground that there can be no ethics without man and that with his unawareness of his ethical responsibilities, he damages not only the living and non-living nature but also himself, his own species, within the context of the problem of HPP.
Felsefe tarihine bakıldığında "özgürlük" üzerine çokça söz söylendiğini okuruz ve "özgürlük nedir... more Felsefe tarihine bakıldığında "özgürlük" üzerine çokça söz söylendiğini okuruz ve "özgürlük nedir?", "özgürlük var mıdır, yok mudur?" ya da "insan özgür müdür?" sorularına ilişkin tartışmalarla karşılaşırız. Bu tartışmalarda belki de en sıklıkla karşımıza çıkan düşünür I. Kant ve onun "özgürlük" kavramına ilişkin düşüncelerini dile getirdiği bağlamdır: akıl-aydınlanmaebedi barış ödevi. Bu bağlam içerisinde, akıl bizi aydınlanmaya; aydınlanma ise ebedi barış ödevine ulaştıracak olandır. Bu aynı zamanda, doğanın insanlığın önüne en üstün görev olarak koyduğu "özgür bir toplum"a ulaşabilmek ve duyulan özgürlük özlemini dindirebilmek için yürünmesi gereken de bir yoldur. Bu yolda Kant, en önemli yükümlülüğü "akıl" denilen yetiye, dolayısıyla üstün görülebilecek bu yetiye sahip olmakla da diğer her şeyden ayrılan insana yüklemektedir:
Uploads
Papers by Berfin Kart
Beyond being a problem of national income distribution or unequal distribution of wealth, the social injustice is arisen from the fact that the social, economic and political rights –the rights granted– are not guaranteed as to preserve the basic rights of all citizens equally. Thus, social injustice is a problem which leads exploitation, inequality and injustice. Social injustice comes out not because of the unequal distribution of what “exists”, as a popular wisdom, but because of the unequal “distribution” of the penuries (Kuçuradi, 2013a: 16). Although its being a problem that can be cleared without waiting for the development of poor countries, the social injustice is perceived today as a problem related to the income distribution, or the unfair distribution of income. However, the “social injustice appears as a problem related to all basic rights which can be protected only directly” (Kuçuradi, 2013a:12).
Then the problem of social injustice is primarily a problem of demarcation. The bound to be drawn is in relation of basic rights like nutrition, health, education, labor and etc. which are requests of presuppositions which designate the actualization of human potentials; to the social, economic and political rights granted by state and preserved by means of some public establishments. Social injustice is a problem of human rights which arises in case of the fact that this demarcation is not accomplished properly –in other words, according to the principle of equality– for each citizen. In other words, it arises when the given life conditions are below the level of preserving the “human value” or dignity for every one. The social injustice in one country or in the world leads inevitably to the violation of human dignity and value.
“ ‘Human dignity’ denotes the awareness of the value of the human being... Single human rights are practical implications of human dignity. They demand from all individuals a kind of treatment for all individuals, which protects the value of the human being” (Kuçuradi, 2013b: 101). The concept of human rights is grounded on human dignity. The concept of “dignity” finds its contemporary meaning in the expression “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” which is expressed at the beginning of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this first article of the Declaration, it is articulated that the “all members of the human family is equal in respect of dignity and rights”. It can be said that a conception human “dignity” free from the hierarchal aspects and reasons like race, ancestry, gender, health condition etc. and which is supposed to be equal in each human being (Sulmasy, 2012: 17) and inherent/intrinsic in each human person would be more suitable than a hereditary, attributed, denominational, developing, social and relative “dignity” for the human rights. When we think the human dignity as not only a value for grounding the human rights, but also a necessity in providing and preserving the human dignity and rights, the human dignity seems to be a very vulnerable and fragile value.
The concept of “vulnerability” has come to the fore since rationality and autonomy are considered as the specific nature of man, and the critique that the concept of man as an autonomous subject which excludes some people , as kids, elders and mentally retarded people from the determination of human dignity. The concept of “vulnerability” is raised as a new basis and is used more frequently in the discussions of human rights as a result of the problems faced in grounding human rights on the human dignity. It is related to the capacity of humanistic pain, being exposure to danger and fencelessness in respect of its relation to the humanity, “indicates a capacity of being open to the world and to any wounding related to something earthly” (Turner, 2006: 28). It is used to express the “sufferer” or “disadvantageous” people, was determined as the “danger of being damaged” (Goodin, 1985: 110). The concept of vulnerability has been more important in context of preserving the basic rights as well. We can observe its gradually increasing appearance and its effect on the decisions of European Court of Human Rights in European Social Committee, Council of Europe and European Union Law. The concept has been usedmore frequently at the decisions of European Court of Human Rights as well. To the concept of vulnerability is referred for the victims of torture and sexual assault, for the people who are mentally and physically disable, children, old people, for refugees who faced discrimination and oppression in their countries sometimes only because of belonging to a different race and ethnic origin from the majority.
The refugees who had to leave their country due to civil wars or political and economical reasons are also considered in these vulnerable groups. As the disables, children and old people, mostly the refugees are facing with inhuman living conditions. Like the people both child and disable or both belong to a minority and disable, some refugees as children and disabled ones also face with multiple vulnerability, and to supply them a humane living conditions and to protect their dignity is more difficult than the others. The deprivation of refugees from the social and economic rights from which citizens of the host country enjoy is the main reason for their multiple vulnerability.
The problem of social injustice is a problem of demarcation related to the relation of basic rights as nutrition, health and education with the social, economic and cultural rights provided by a state by means of some regulations and organizations. Social injustice emerges when the limits of these rights are not drawn duly by the state for all citizens based on the principle of equality- and when the living conditions provided remain under the level required for the full protection of human value and dignity.
The multiple vulnerability of refugees who had to leave their own land is as a result of social injustice and civil wars. In this paper, just after tackling the global social injustice and its results, the concepts of “vulnerability” and “human dignity” will be clarified first separately, then in their relations with each other. By this way, it will be tried to clarify whether human dignity involves vulnerability in itself.
In this paper, going from the concept of social injustice, I will try identify which rights are basic rights, which are not, and to demonstrate the relationship between social injustice and human rights. Additionally, I will try to Show up that the refugee problem is not only a economical and political problem, but also an ethical and philosophical problem. Given that every person is a potential refugee, we should concentrate more on the ways of securing a humane life to all refugees as all other vulnerable groups of people.
Key Words: Social Injustice, Human Rights, Refugee(ness), Vulnerability, Multiple Vulnerability.
The problems of refugees in a host country are not same with problems of rights of citizens of host country; and to protect the dignity and vulnerability of refugees is more difficult than others. Refugees who lost their citizenship rights and left their homeland face with severe ethical problems and human rights violations. Refugees are regarded among the vulnerable groups as children, disables, elders, because of their living and political conditions and their being deprived of basic rights.
The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the multiple vulnerability of refugees such as child, woman, elder and disable. In this paper, I will try to demonstrate that the refugee problem is not only a juridical or political problem, but also an ethical and philosophical problem.
Keywords: Refugeehood; Vulnerability; Multiple Vulnerability; Ethics, Human Dignity; Human Rights.
The question that does ethics have priority to politics or does politics actually need ethical principles has been one of main question of political philosophy and it has been responded mostly negatively and believed that man must choose only one of them either politics or ethics, but they can exist together peacefully in one person or the State. To clarify the connection between ethics and politics we have to raise the question, namely what is the aim of politics. Aristotle tackles this question in his Nichomachean Ethics in detail and shows the necessary connection among them. Aristotle considers ethics a part of politics, as a mean which politics needs in reaching its aims. According to Aristotle, the main concern of politics is to acquire the citizen virtuous character and so to make them good citizens. Contemporary politics is following the paths of Aristotle's analysis, either acknowledging or opposing his ideas. The challenge in politics today is the question that is virtue a precondition for well-being of the citizens?
ÖZET:
Etiğin politikayı önceleyip öncelemediği ya da politikanın etik ilkelere ihtiyacı olup olmadığı sorusu siyaset felsefesinin ana sorularından biri olmuştur. Soru genellikle olumsuz bir biçimde yanıtlanmış ve politikacıların bunlardan birini seçmesi gerektiğine inanılmıştır. Etik ve politika arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklığa kavuşturmak için öncelikle " politikanın amacı nedir? " sorusunun yanıtlanması gerekmektedir. Nikomakhos'a Etik'te Aristoteles etiği politikanın bir parçası, politikanın amaçlarına ulaşması için gereken bir araç olarak görür. Aristoteles'e göre politikanın asıl amacı yurttaşların erdemli kişiler olmalarını sağlayarak onları iyi yurttaşlar kılmaktır. Çağdaş siyaset felsefesi Aristoteles'in düşüncelerini onaylayarak ya da ona karşı çıkarak onu izler. Bugün siyasette yanıt aranması gereken soru, Aristoteles'in dediği gibi erdemin, mutluluğun ya da iyi-olmanın bir önkoşulu olup olmadığıdır.
Conference Presentations by Berfin Kart
Beyond being a problem of national income distribution or unequal distribution of wealth, the social injustice is arisen from the fact that the social, economic and political rights –the rights granted– are not guaranteed as to preserve the basic rights of all citizens equally. Thus, social injustice is a problem which leads exploitation, inequality and injustice. Social injustice comes out not because of the unequal distribution of what “exists”, as a popular wisdom, but because of the unequal “distribution” of the penuries (Kuçuradi, 2013a: 16). Although its being a problem that can be cleared without waiting for the development of poor countries, the social injustice is perceived today as a problem related to the income distribution, or the unfair distribution of income. However, the “social injustice appears as a problem related to all basic rights which can be protected only directly” (Kuçuradi, 2013a:12).
Then the problem of social injustice is primarily a problem of demarcation. The bound to be drawn is in relation of basic rights like nutrition, health, education, labor and etc. which are requests of presuppositions which designate the actualization of human potentials; to the social, economic and political rights granted by state and preserved by means of some public establishments. Social injustice is a problem of human rights which arises in case of the fact that this demarcation is not accomplished properly –in other words, according to the principle of equality– for each citizen. In other words, it arises when the given life conditions are below the level of preserving the “human value” or dignity for every one. The social injustice in one country or in the world leads inevitably to the violation of human dignity and value.
“ ‘Human dignity’ denotes the awareness of the value of the human being... Single human rights are practical implications of human dignity. They demand from all individuals a kind of treatment for all individuals, which protects the value of the human being” (Kuçuradi, 2013b: 101). The concept of human rights is grounded on human dignity. The concept of “dignity” finds its contemporary meaning in the expression “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” which is expressed at the beginning of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this first article of the Declaration, it is articulated that the “all members of the human family is equal in respect of dignity and rights”. It can be said that a conception human “dignity” free from the hierarchal aspects and reasons like race, ancestry, gender, health condition etc. and which is supposed to be equal in each human being (Sulmasy, 2012: 17) and inherent/intrinsic in each human person would be more suitable than a hereditary, attributed, denominational, developing, social and relative “dignity” for the human rights. When we think the human dignity as not only a value for grounding the human rights, but also a necessity in providing and preserving the human dignity and rights, the human dignity seems to be a very vulnerable and fragile value.
The concept of “vulnerability” has come to the fore since rationality and autonomy are considered as the specific nature of man, and the critique that the concept of man as an autonomous subject which excludes some people , as kids, elders and mentally retarded people from the determination of human dignity. The concept of “vulnerability” is raised as a new basis and is used more frequently in the discussions of human rights as a result of the problems faced in grounding human rights on the human dignity. It is related to the capacity of humanistic pain, being exposure to danger and fencelessness in respect of its relation to the humanity, “indicates a capacity of being open to the world and to any wounding related to something earthly” (Turner, 2006: 28). It is used to express the “sufferer” or “disadvantageous” people, was determined as the “danger of being damaged” (Goodin, 1985: 110). The concept of vulnerability has been more important in context of preserving the basic rights as well. We can observe its gradually increasing appearance and its effect on the decisions of European Court of Human Rights in European Social Committee, Council of Europe and European Union Law. The concept has been usedmore frequently at the decisions of European Court of Human Rights as well. To the concept of vulnerability is referred for the victims of torture and sexual assault, for the people who are mentally and physically disable, children, old people, for refugees who faced discrimination and oppression in their countries sometimes only because of belonging to a different race and ethnic origin from the majority.
The refugees who had to leave their country due to civil wars or political and economical reasons are also considered in these vulnerable groups. As the disables, children and old people, mostly the refugees are facing with inhuman living conditions. Like the people both child and disable or both belong to a minority and disable, some refugees as children and disabled ones also face with multiple vulnerability, and to supply them a humane living conditions and to protect their dignity is more difficult than the others. The deprivation of refugees from the social and economic rights from which citizens of the host country enjoy is the main reason for their multiple vulnerability.
The problem of social injustice is a problem of demarcation related to the relation of basic rights as nutrition, health and education with the social, economic and cultural rights provided by a state by means of some regulations and organizations. Social injustice emerges when the limits of these rights are not drawn duly by the state for all citizens based on the principle of equality- and when the living conditions provided remain under the level required for the full protection of human value and dignity.
The multiple vulnerability of refugees who had to leave their own land is as a result of social injustice and civil wars. In this paper, just after tackling the global social injustice and its results, the concepts of “vulnerability” and “human dignity” will be clarified first separately, then in their relations with each other. By this way, it will be tried to clarify whether human dignity involves vulnerability in itself.
In this paper, going from the concept of social injustice, I will try identify which rights are basic rights, which are not, and to demonstrate the relationship between social injustice and human rights. Additionally, I will try to Show up that the refugee problem is not only a economical and political problem, but also an ethical and philosophical problem. Given that every person is a potential refugee, we should concentrate more on the ways of securing a humane life to all refugees as all other vulnerable groups of people.
Key Words: Social Injustice, Human Rights, Refugee(ness), Vulnerability, Multiple Vulnerability.
The problems of refugees in a host country are not same with problems of rights of citizens of host country; and to protect the dignity and vulnerability of refugees is more difficult than others. Refugees who lost their citizenship rights and left their homeland face with severe ethical problems and human rights violations. Refugees are regarded among the vulnerable groups as children, disables, elders, because of their living and political conditions and their being deprived of basic rights.
The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the multiple vulnerability of refugees such as child, woman, elder and disable. In this paper, I will try to demonstrate that the refugee problem is not only a juridical or political problem, but also an ethical and philosophical problem.
Keywords: Refugeehood; Vulnerability; Multiple Vulnerability; Ethics, Human Dignity; Human Rights.
The question that does ethics have priority to politics or does politics actually need ethical principles has been one of main question of political philosophy and it has been responded mostly negatively and believed that man must choose only one of them either politics or ethics, but they can exist together peacefully in one person or the State. To clarify the connection between ethics and politics we have to raise the question, namely what is the aim of politics. Aristotle tackles this question in his Nichomachean Ethics in detail and shows the necessary connection among them. Aristotle considers ethics a part of politics, as a mean which politics needs in reaching its aims. According to Aristotle, the main concern of politics is to acquire the citizen virtuous character and so to make them good citizens. Contemporary politics is following the paths of Aristotle's analysis, either acknowledging or opposing his ideas. The challenge in politics today is the question that is virtue a precondition for well-being of the citizens?
ÖZET:
Etiğin politikayı önceleyip öncelemediği ya da politikanın etik ilkelere ihtiyacı olup olmadığı sorusu siyaset felsefesinin ana sorularından biri olmuştur. Soru genellikle olumsuz bir biçimde yanıtlanmış ve politikacıların bunlardan birini seçmesi gerektiğine inanılmıştır. Etik ve politika arasındaki ilişkiyi açıklığa kavuşturmak için öncelikle " politikanın amacı nedir? " sorusunun yanıtlanması gerekmektedir. Nikomakhos'a Etik'te Aristoteles etiği politikanın bir parçası, politikanın amaçlarına ulaşması için gereken bir araç olarak görür. Aristoteles'e göre politikanın asıl amacı yurttaşların erdemli kişiler olmalarını sağlayarak onları iyi yurttaşlar kılmaktır. Çağdaş siyaset felsefesi Aristoteles'in düşüncelerini onaylayarak ya da ona karşı çıkarak onu izler. Bugün siyasette yanıt aranması gereken soru, Aristoteles'in dediği gibi erdemin, mutluluğun ya da iyi-olmanın bir önkoşulu olup olmadığıdır.