Current location - Music Encyclopedia - Today in History - Sandel: Do contemporary people need to be responsible for historical events?
Sandel: Do contemporary people need to be responsible for historical events?
Philosophy is really boundless. This is not a modern philosopher who gave lectures on modern western thought. I haven't heard the introduction in the introductory book, but the problems told by modern philosophers are closer to the present life. Michael Thornton is a modern philosopher I have never known. He was born in 1953 and is still alive. He is also the youngest ideological figure mentioned in this handout! Look at Baidu's introduction:

Rawls is naturally famous, and his theory of justice is even more famous. Sandel is an opponent in this respect. Rawls called Sandel, and Sandel was deeply moved by his humble attitude, but he did not give up his criticism of Rawls' theory. I think this should be the case between scholars. Aristotle's "I love my teacher but I love the truth more" is the attitude that scholars should have. Different opinions and having to be hostile are two different things!

Sandel's question, "Do contemporary people have to bear the historical guilt of their predecessors?" After a lot of analysis, Sandel concluded that people should be responsible for the actions of their ancestors (even if they have never met).

Now we usually think that the last two generations and the next two generations plus the middle self, a total of five generations have inheritance relations, so they are responsible. For example, others can claim compensation from their families for crimes, and people also feel that this is their home from the emotional level, and no one has broken off their relationship for legal separation. However, if someone claims that your ancestors did harm to their ancestors ten generations ago, now that you are developed, you will be asked to pay compensation. Of course, the legal level will not support it, nor will the moral level. Will only be considered abnormal!

But now Germans and Japanese have come out to say that how many years have passed since the war, and people all over the world keep jumping out and saying, is it too much to often take this as a target? The people who are alive now may be grandpa's grandpa, so is it appropriate to attack them again? There is a theory in philosophy that "people should not be responsible for what they have not done". This theory seems completely unreasonable to me. Parents have the responsibility of education when they have children, and parents can't say that their children's sins are completely irrelevant.

People are social people, with families in their lives, relatives and friends in their work, and social groups in society. Sandel also has a famous "communitarianism" label. He quoted the philosopher Mai Gentile as saying that man is "a storyteller". He believes that people are never isolated personal stories, and everyone's stories are formed and developed in community relations. Without community, we can't tell personal stories, and we can't produce our stories in pure personal free will.

There is a close "constitutive relationship" between communities and individuals. In the national community, individuals continue the legacy of their predecessors, so individuals also need to bear special obligations to the country. So in the end, it is concluded that people are responsible for the actions of their ancestors (even if they have never met).

Personally, I think that people need to be responsible for their own relationships, but there needs to be a deadline, and the country should also be responsible for the past, but there must also be a deadline. But at present, each country has a clear time limit for individuals, but there is no common contract between countries. But I believe that all this will one day reach a common contract in this space of the earth, and we are the current participants!