PROPHESYING GLOBAL JUSTICE:
THINKERS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION ON UNIVERSAL PROGRESS; 457-469
Egill
Arnarson
Reykjavik
Academy, Iceland
Abstract: The following paper presents two different models of
a just world order that take the French Revolution as their starting point:
Condorcet’s optimistic account of the bright but unilateral future course of
history and the social model of Auguste Comte intended to unite the
world’s varying value systems. These two opposed approaches will be considered
from the point of view of the actual debate on whether Western values should be
predominant in the age of globalization. This debate is therefore linked to the
questions whether different value systems should be treated equally or whether a
particular one can be seen as superior to others, and thus no longer to be
termed as a value system, but as a universal norm.
Keywords: Comte, Condorcet, universalism, values, humanity, progress,
globalization
References
Baker,
Keith Michael (1975) Condorcet: from natural
philosophy to social mathematics. Chicago and London: University
of Chicago Press.
Chabert, Nuno (1994) Les philosophes de
la Révolution française, ou Comment terminer la Révolution: Révolution
française et histoire des idées.
Bergen: Université de Bergen.
Comte, Auguste (1852) Catéchisme positiviste ou Sommaire exposition de la religion
universelle en onze entretiens systématiques entre une femme et un prêtre
de l'humanité. Paris.:.
Condorcet, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat (1970) Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progres
de l’esprit humain. Paris: Bibliotheque nationale. http://cupid.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/het/
condorcet/Esquis10.htm
Kintzler, Catherine (1987) Condorcet. Paris: Gallimard.
Manuel, Frank Edward (1962) The prophets of Paris. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Pickering, Mary (1993) Auguste Comte: an intellectual biography. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pogge, Thomas (1989) Realizing Rawls. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Rawls, John (2001) The
law of peoples: with “The idea of public reason revisited”. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.