دکترسیدعلی محمودی

One of the fundamental concepts that categorizes intellectuals who speak within the framework of liberalism into various groups is autonomy itself and its limits and boundaries. Among these categories, one can refer to the division between supporters of government neutrality and perfectionism, or in other words advocates of non-intervention or government intervention in relation to different aspects of life, which place liberal thinkers in two distinct camps in terms of the limits and boundaries they advocate for. Dworkin constructs his theory of equality based on two principles of concern and equal respect and unique responsibility and extracts government neutrality and autonomy from these two principles. Like many advocates of government neutrality, he attaches importance to autonomy; however, he does not endorse absolute autonomy and advocates for limits and boundaries. He distinguishes between autonomy and authenticity, considering autonomy to have a narrower scope than authenticity. Dworkin, while opposing the adoption of paternalistic policies by the government, does not outright negate government intervention in various areas of political and social life, deeming such interventions to some extent necessary and unavoidable. This article, utilizing a descriptive-analytical approach, critically examines the concept of autonomy and its position in Dworkin's intellectual framework and seeks to answer the question of what place autonomy and consequently neutrality hold in Dworkin's thought. Ultimately, this article concludes that although the restriction of autonomy in his views, especially regarding equality in resources, is more than he admits, a paternalistic viewpoint stands out in certain aspects of his theory of resource equality.

War as a human phenomenon has been one of the catastrophic problems of human societies throughout history. Endeavors of some philosophers especially during contemporary century, being used to eliminate war by applying human rights and ethics. The output of this corporation is rejection of offensive war and accepting defensive war as justifiable and legitimate. John Rawls considering fundamental principles and emphasizing human rights and ethics, has made attempt to take new steps towards limitation of war. This research is based on analytic philosophy through “conceptual analysis” and “critical evaluation”. It has analyzed Rawls’ viewpoint on basic principles of Just war, reasons of offensive wars and taking part of it as unjustifiable, and reasons of defensive war and participation of it as justifiable. Furthermore, refusal of joining a war and also methods of defensive war in different systems of government are discussed. Critique and evaluation of Rawls’ doctrine on assessment of the specific situation indicate that there are contradictions between his realistic attitude and legal and moral obligations. So findings of the research reveal approval of hidden intervention in other countries by domestic governments based on national security, approval of attack on civilians by governors in emergency situations for the interest of political system, and justifying bombardment of Germany by Britain in Second Word War based on legal and moral constraints.

The main issue of this article is exploring the nature of imperialism as a fundamental phenomenon in new age which is connected to some subjects such as development, nation-state, bureaucracy, and citizenship. The importance and complexity of this issue led Arendt to analyze and critique its multiple aspects. The purpose of this research is the description, analysis and critique of some basic theoretical and historical dimensions of Arendt’s Imperialism and explanation of some aspects of her innovations and shortcomings. The methodology of Thomas A. Spragens on political theorists is used in this research. The outcome of our quest on Arendt’s treatise is that her central problem as a philosopher has been human beings and the ecology of mankind. She has helped for promotion and accuracy of political literature by finding the distinction between definitions of some concepts. In this way, she has clarified the complexities of her treatise. Although she has criticized the humanitarian aid of developed countries to less-developed states and sees it as imperialist, she has not offered a way out of this complex dilemma. To find the cause and analyses of phenomena of the modern age, such as the anti-Semitism and statelessness that Arendt found in racism, are examples of her innovations as a political theorist.

Attaining consistency and coordination between morality and politics is a vital necessity for achieving a moral-oriented political structure and statesmanship. Therefore three schools of virtue ethics, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics are evaluated in order that their capacities and deficiencies are explained and revealed. For this purpose, the methodology of conceptual analysis and critical evaluation within analytic philosophy is used. The outcome of this study suggests that merely one of the triple moral schools cannot be sufficient to provide consistency between morality and politics. Therefore my proposed solution is to take some propositions from utilitarianism and deontological ethics together with Golden Rule to exploit the potential of these two schools of thought on the one hand, and to diverge from the contradiction and inconsistency in moral politics on the other. The point of departure for this compilation is a political morality which enjoys theoretical theme, and the applied capacity in the realm of politics.

Water plays an important role in Central Asia. This area is more than 4 million square kilometers of breadthwhich includes Post-Soviet Republics of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan and covers more than Indian Subcontinent’s breadth and has a population of about 60 million people. Due to the fact that Central Asian is located in a dry and semi-arid belt, agriculture would be possible through irrigation and it is not expected to produce dried crops. As a result, artificial water distribution systems are needed. In the late nineteenth century with the conquest of all parts of Central Asia by the Russian Empire, new water distribution systems for flax production were carried out on a wider scale than in comparison with the past. As a result the seemingly endless Central Asian Water Resources began to decline from 1960s when the rapid increase in demand for water started by drainage of rivers and reducing groundwater resources, as well as degradation of water and soil quality. The drying of “Aral Lake” is also the result of the same Water Management policies that were adopted during the Soviet Era.
Agriculture is a reasonable point for Central Asian Economy and products such as flax and rice need plenty of water and irrigation. In addition, irrigation systems in the area have been severely eroded; so half of the water resources never flow to the farm lands and goes to spits. Several years of drought has also taken place in the area and is still likely to happen again. But due to political and economic rivalries between the countries of the region, they have not been able to agree on a replacement system instead of the Soviet Era Water Resources Management System. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the change in natural resources management in each Central Asian Autonomous Republics occurred .The result of this historic event was the rivalry over water resources which were alarmingly increasing in the region and were leading to potential tensions in Central Asian republics. Therefore the political climate became tense. Water Pricing will save this problem. In Central Asian Region, water should be distributed with market prices by eliminating water subsidies which was a legacy of the Soviet Union era.
In Central Asia, given that most of the region’s water surfaces originate from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, the two countries apply stringent water abstraction systems while the downstream countries which include Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, naturally feel threatened by the two upstream countries and try to counter the threats. But the disagreements that exist between the downstream countries on water distribution prevent these countries from uniting and cooperating with each other against the upstream countries. In fact, all countries of Central Asian Region feel threatened by each other and choose their allies from trans-region. As Kazakhstan and Russia, both worried about Uzbekistan’s threats (Kazakhstan is competing with Uzbekistan and Russia over the leadership of the region due to its lack of presence in Uzbekistan) and united with each other.
The main question of the article is why Water Diplomacy between the countries of Central Asian states, despite cultural, linguistic, religious and geographical proximities with each other, has not been successful so far, that these countries have adopted less cooperative regional approaches to water issues and each one seeks to find trans-regional allies? The answer to this question based on “Defensive Realism Theory” is that the issue of water along with ethnic and border disputes have become a security issue in relations between the countries of Central Asia, because of the threat the feel from each other and seek to find trans-regional allies which have common benefits for them. Therefore, due to the fact that Water Diplomacy in Central Asian Region is not inherent in origin and is influenced by border and ethnic disputes, as a result, it has not been successful in resolving regional conflicts.
Regarding the dependence of most Central Asian states economy to common and trans- boundary waters, the issue of Water Management is of a great importance in the region. Water Diplomacy in Central Asia after the independence of the countries of the region in February 1992 was manifested in the framework of an “Almaty Agreement” between all Central Asian states which demanded maintenance of allocation of Water Resources from the Soviet time. In 2008, Kazakhstan’s president as a downstream country, as well as Tajikistan’s and Kyrgyzstan Presidents, as upstream countries agreed on a plan of exchanging water and energy; But Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, which were dependent on Water Resources of upstream countries, demanded the maintenance of the Almaty Agreement and their previous status in the Soviet era and did not attend the meeting. The reason for Kazakhstan’s agreement is the large breadth of the country and its lack of dependence to “Syr Darya”. Of course, with the change of ruling government in Uzbekistan, the country has welcomed negotiations on water resources and even supported the development of water facilities in Tajikistan.
The downstream countries of Central Asian Region including Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan were defined by agriculture in the Soviet era due to their ferry lands; so much of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan’s water was transferred to these countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Based on Defensive Realism Theory, all states seek to preserve their past position and their main behavior in foreign policy is the balance of threats against theose states that threaten their position. Although all of downstream countries in the region feel threatened by upstream countries in the context of water, there are some disagreements among these countries. They cannot unite against a common threat and in fact no kind of strong cooperation agreement at the level of the Central Asian Region can be formed among them. Therefore, the countries of the region are looking for trans-regional allies and the disagreement over common water resources (due to the regional water crisis) alongside ethnic and border disputes have become one of the main reasons for the divergence of the countries of the Central Asian Region.

Democratic family, as a new phenomenon in Iran, is based on some fundamental principles such as liberty, equality, rule of law, and tolerance. In this article, some of the important aspects of a democratic family in Iran will be explained and evaluated by applying conceptual analysis and critical evaluation. The family, which is characterized by middle class, rights, population and urbanization, marriage and divorce, violence, and nuclear family, lead to reasonable decision-making through dialogue and cooperation. The patriarchal mode of management in Iranian family has gradually changed into a collective decision-making, in which, the role of boys and girls are significant. These characteristics indicate that Iranian democratic family is a transitional process of social and political development in Iran.

Civil disobedience in John Rawls’ theory of justice is protesting actions of citizens against some unjust laws and policy making in a democratic governments. The objective of such actions is reform and change on the basis of a constitution through rational and peaceful manners. Rawls relied on civil disobedience on the philosophical and moral foundation and, while justifying it on the basis of two principles of justice, discusses the role of this non-violent civil action. In his assessment, civil disobedience is justifiable as a legal and moral action, for this treatment confronts unjust, no efficient other lawful acts, and acceptance of some inevitable limitations. It is forming on the basis of expansion of liberties, rationality, and overlapping consensus. Hence Civil disobedience is a democratic movement and its objective is reform of some laws and structures; therefore it cannot be considered as militant actions. This research uses conceptual analysis and critical evaluation based upon analytic philosophy to explain and criticize the issue of civil disobedience in Rawls political philosophy. The outcome of this study is that Rawls’ thoughts as a means of defining and explaining the philosophical and ethical principles, as well as the precise drawing of civil disobedience boundaries from militant practices have the rational consistency and theoretical strength. Against this observation, his objective guidance and action in this regard are in some cases subject to ambiguities and shortcomings. Rawls does not follow a same method regarding such guidance.

The foundation of John Rawls’ theory of justice is how to choose two principles of justice in a manner that the parties of dialogue reduce the level of their mistakes at least possible in their choices. Biased upon the theoretical principles in rational choices, deliberative rationality in particular, and also choosing constructivism- contrary to teleological and intuitional approaches which circumscribe options in the realm of right- Rawls makes an attempt to open path to a rational choice. Hence, rational, free and equal persons, choose the principles of justice through a considered dialogue with each other, and also with their yokefellows. In this research, I have used the methodology of conceptual analysis and critical evaluation on the basis of analytical philosophy. In this article, the core of the argument is that how and in which manner, Rawls’ deliberative rationality ends to an agreement among citizens. After the assessment of above-mentioned principle, the deliberative rationality in particular to attain a choice, the outcome of the research is access of citizens to agreement through thoughtful dialogue in order to solve macro social and political problems. In this regard, Rawls’ logical and well-organized theory as a strong philosophical support, increases the capacities and possibilities of effective dialogue, and eventually possible achievement to common fundamental agreements.

In connection with human dignity and rights of women, Kant and Mill retain a same viewpoint, i.e., they appretiate that women own intrinsically human values. They also reject instrumental usage of women, but in relation to women’s social and political rights, their ways are separated: Kant considers women as man’s property and passive citizens. He denies the social and political rights of women. Conversely, Mill defends women’s social and political rights on the bases of liberty and equality. So, Kant’s standpoints on human dignity of women on the one hand, and their social and political rights on the other, suffer from contradiction, while Mill’s thoughts are consistence in this context. One can understand the essence of difference between these two philosopher’s notions by using hermeneutic method (text and context). The controversy on women’s rights mainly emerges from effects of historical developments particularly economic, social and political affairs, within Kant’s and Mill’s thoughts.

Connections between liberty and equality in John Rawls political philosophy was a departure point towards creating the Theory of Justice. Based upon the heritage of philosophers of enlightenment and getting advantage of the origins of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy on anthropology and morality in particular, Rawls explained the foundations of his theory. He also discussed the essence of justice and explained that why and how justice can be achievable. Rawls’ breaking with tradition together with his renewal in a theory regarding justice, promoted equality by putting such a basic right besides liberty. In this article, I will discuss presuppositions of the two principles of justice and also the logic of priority of liberty over equality by applying the methodology of conceptual analysis and critical evaluation. Although Rawls achieved the assumption of the priority of liberty over equality through his anthropological reasons within a framework of a philosophical theory, it is understandable that he applying philosophical and political approaches in the light of reasonable arguments made neighboring and simultaneous relationships between liberty and equality. Therefore, Rawls made his attempts to provide a possibility for the attainment of social, political and economic justice in human societies.

The subject of this article is about the decision of Ban Ki-Moon, the former secretary general of the United Nations in relation to the threat of Saudi Arabia to stop all its financial support to the United Nations, if the secretary general does not remove Saudi-led Coalition from the annex I of his annual report (2016) to Security Council. In his report, the secretary general explained the fact of killing and disabling children, and military attacks to schools and hospitals in Yemen by coalition. My attempt is to evaluate the decision of the secretary general on this issue by using conceptual analysis and critical evaluation as a methodology, regarding a dilemma of the moral interference on the basis of deontological ethics. In fact the secretary general confronted a dilemma concerning two options in this regard: first removing coalition from the report and preventing Saudis to stop their support to the United Nations; second, avoidance of removing coalition and confronting execution of the threat of this country. He chose the first option.
Based upon deontological ethics, in my view, assessment of the decision of secretary general indicates that although he has committed immoral deed by removing the name of coalition from the report, nevertheless through preventing Saudi Arabia from executing its threat, his decision is in conformity with deontological ethics. Conversely, measures taken by Saudi Arabia and other member states of coalition using pressure and threat against the United Nations indicate immoral behavior, in addition to their individualist acts and disintegration of these countries regarding their international obligations as the members of the United Nations.