Abstract
In her chapter, Luna Rösinger explores the relationship between universally binding law on the one hand and diversity with its pluralistic views on the other. Couched in philosophical idealism, she develops a concept of right, which construes both freedom and sociality as integral parts of right. She then addresses some particularly pressing issues, in which diversity challenges the law, thereby exploring culturally rooted motives in criminal law, religious symbols such as the headscarf, gender equality in working life, and social aid for the disadvantaged and poor. The chapter concludes by outlining the potential and the limits of the law on the path to inclusive diversity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See, for example, the interdisciplinary anthologies on tolerance, edited by Christoph Enders and Michael Kahlo (2007 and 2010). Also see Michael Köhler (1994) and Rainer Zaczyk (2005, 2010, 2014a, 2014b). Please note: when I capitalize “the Law,” I refer to the philosophy and often contradictory considerations that form the theoretical foundation for laws, as materialized in a liberal society.
- 2.
- 3.
The treatment of the State presented here is necessarily abbreviated.
- 4.
Zaczyk 1993: 24. That not these weaknesses and mutual mistrust (as asserted in a Hobbesian viewpoint), but rather the rational self-determination of subjects who are also aware of their potential weaknesses comprise the starting point for the foundation of the State is a foundational argument derived from Kant , as are other observations in Zaczyk 1993: 24. See Wolff 1985: 806 ff., especially 812 ff. See also Köhler 1997: 16. According to Kant , “The Doctrine of Right,” The Metaphysics of Morals (1996): 1st section, §44, Köhler argues that this “is not primarily subjective maliciousness, but the binding to perspectives of an autonomous moral conception of regulation.” Please note: unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine.
- 5.
- 6.
See especially Zaczyk 2014b: 57, 80 ff. and Köhler 1997: 87 ff. Unfortunately, the importance to the development of a legal relationship between states cannot be treated here. See Köhler 1994: 82 ff.; Köhler 1997: 87 ff.; and especially Zaczyk 2014b: 87 ff.; Zaczyk 2014a: 38; also cf. the references in footnote 11.
- 7.
See Zaczyk 2014a: 35, with his own development of the concept especially in regard to Fichte . Contrary to contractarian theory (see below), it should be noted that for a legal perspective, what is determined as a right should not be understood simply as a consequence molded out of generalizing antagonisms. Rather, a right is based on initial, mutual recognition (loc. cit., 36). In regard to the contractarian theory mentioned above: “‘Contractarianism’ names both a political theory of the legitimacy of political authority and a moral theory about the origin or legitimate content of moral norms” (Cudd 2013).
- 8.
This approach to the initial unity of subjects that differentiates into a second step is closer to the legal philosophy of Fichte than to that of Hegel. See Zaczyk 2014a: 33, fn. 33.
- 9.
The original Grundlage des Naturrechts nach Prinzipien der Wissenschaftslehre [often translated as “Foundations of Natural Right”] was published in 1796.
- 10.
- 11.
On the other hand, the cultural conditionality and historical evolution of an individual legal system imposes a strong restraint on intervention in foreign societies or states, which does not respect basic rights for the individual. Western states should also be wary about imposing values, not only because of past imperialism, but also because the principles of human rights have not yet been realized effectively. See Köhler 2017: 330 ff. With reference to social injustice (among other phenomena) in Europe, see Köhler 1994: 82 ff. Also see the references in footnote 6 on the relationship between states.
- 12.
- 13.
This also corresponds to how humanity is portrayed in the German Constitution, to which Klesczewski 2016: 150 rightly refers. Cf. Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 29 July 1968—registered as case 1 BvL 20/63, 31/66 and 5/67; publication reference BVerfGE [Bundesverfassungsgericht, Decisions of the German Constitutional Court]: 24, 119 ff.
- 14.
Accordingly, the German Constitution states in Art. 6 (2): “The care and upbringing of children is the natural right of parents and a duty primarily incumbent upon them. The State shall monitor them in the performance of this duty.”
- 15.
- 16.
This measure has elicited criticism due to the gender delimitation, because the legislator has not taken into account the concrete intensity of the interventions. See Enders 2014: 306 ff.
- 17.
Ian Carter, “Positive and Negative Liberty,” Stanford Encyclopedia. While Isaiah Berlin is the locus classicus for positive and negative liberty, I do have some disagreements with his approach, which I unfortunately cannot treat here.
- 18.
With respect to inclusive diversity, the emphasis should be on the aspects of utterances that attack the personhood of an individual. Dangers to the State and general interests should be excluded here.
- 19.
With regard to racist speech, see Kübler 2000: 112 ff. with reference to Art. 4 of the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, effective since 1969. For differences between the United States and Germany with regard to hate speech , see Brugger 2002: 1 ff.
- 20.
See Kant , Metaphysics of Morals, Introduction B; in addition, see Zaczyk 2006: 311 ff. A summary in English can be found on heinonline.org. Regarding the matter in relation to freedom of expression , see Zaczyk 2015: 603. The situation is different for the State, which cannot rely on freedom of expression , but must adjust actions to general principles, including the principle of truth.
- 21.
Regarding when concrete harm in individual cases can be identified, see Seelmann 2010: 258. An example of such concrete harm is found in the unendurable obstacles for victims of National Socialism, who must cope with extreme tragedy.
- 22.
In contrast, see the German Act for Equal Participation of Women and Men in Leadership Positions in the Private and Public Sectors [Gesetz für die gleichberechtigte Teilhabe von Frauen und Männern an Führungspositionen in der Privatwirtschaft und im öffentlichen Dienst] of 24 April 2015; for commentary, see Langenfeld 2015: marginal number 104–118.
Works Cited
Brugger, Winfried. 2002. Ban on or Protection of Hate Speech? Some Observations Based on German and American Law. Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 17: 1–21.
Cobbah, Josiah A.M. 1987. African Values and the Human Rights Debate: An African Perspective. Human Rights Quarterly 9: 309–331.
Cudd, Ann. 2013. Contractarianism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Winter. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/contractarianism/. Last Accessed 20 Aug 2017.
Enders, Christoph. 2014. Recht ist, was allgemein ist. Die gesetzliche Regelung zur Beschneidung des männlichen Kindes (§ 1631d BGB). [Right Is What Is General: Legal Regulations for the Circumcision of the Male Child (§ 1631d German Civil Code)]. In Die Verfassung als Aufgabe von Wissenschaft, Praxis und Öffentlichkeit: Freundesgabe für Bernhard Schlink zum 70. Geburtstag [The Constitution as a Task for Science, Practice and the Public: A Gift in Friendship for Bernhard Schlink on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday], eds. Jakob Nolte, Ralf Poscher, and Henne Wolter, 291–308. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. 1869. The Science of Rights. Trans. Adolph Ernst Kroeger. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co.
Kelker, Brigitte. 2010. Fremdkulturelle Normen als Bestandteil der staatlichen Rechtsordnung? [Foreign Cultural Norms as Part of the Legal Framework?]. In Toleranz als Ordnungsprinzip? Die moderne Bürgergesellschaft zwischen Offenheit und Selbstaufgabe [Tolerance as an Ordering Principle? the Modern Civil Society Between Openness and Self-Abandonment], ed. Christoph Enders and Michael Kahlo, 143–164. Paderborn: Mentis Verlag
Klesczewski, Diethelm. 2016. Strafrecht, Besonderer Teil: Lehrbuch zum Strafrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschlan. [Criminal Law, Special Part: Textbook on the Criminal Law of the Federal Republic of Germany]. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Köhler, Michael. 1994. Das angeborene Recht ist nur ein einziges... [There Is Only One Innate Right...]. In Vielfalt des Rechts – Einheit der Rechtsordnung? Hamburger Ringvorlesung [Diversity of Law – Unity of the Legal Order? Hamburg Lecture Series], ed. Karsten Schmidt, 61–84. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot.
———. 1997. Strafrecht: Allgemeiner Teil [Criminal Law: General Part]. Berlin: Springer. Cited as 1997a.
———. 1999. Freiheitliches Rechtsprinzip und Teilhabegerechtigkeit in der modernen Gesellschaft [Liberal Principle of Law and Participatory Justice in Modern Society]. In Freiheit, Gleichheit, Selbstständigkeit. Zur Aktualität der Rechtsphilosophie Kants für die Gerechtigkeit in der modernen Gesellschaft [Freedom, Equality, Self-Reliance: On the Topicality of Kant’s Legal Philosophy for Justice in Modern Society], ed. Götz Landwehr, 103–128. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
———. 2014. Integrität des Kindes und religiöses Gemeinschaftsethos: Zum Rechtsstreit um die Beschneidung [The Integrity of the Child and Religious Community Ethos: The Legal Dispute on Circumcision]. In Festschrift für Kristian Kühl zum 70. Geburtstag [Festschrift for Kristian Kühl on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday], ed. Martin Heger, Brigitte Kelker, and Edward Schramm, 295–314. Munich: C. H. Beck.
———. 2017. Recht und Gerechtigkeit: Grundzüge einer Rechtsphilosophie der verwirklichten Freiheit [Law and Justice: Fundamentals of a Philosophy of Law of Realized Freedom]. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck.
Kühnbach, Lena. 2007. Solidaritätspflichten Unbeteiligter: Dargelegt am Beispiel von Aggressivnotstand, Defensivnotstand, unterlassener Hilfeleistung und polizeilichem Notstand. [Solidarity Obligations of Uninvolved Persons: Through the Example of Aggression Emergency, Defensive Emergency, Failure to Render Assistance, and Police Emergency]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Murmann, Uwe. 2005. Die Selbstverantwortung des Opfers im Strafrecht [The Self-Responsibility of the Victim in Criminal Law]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Naucke, Wolfgang. 1997. Humanismus als Kritik zweckmäßigen Rechts [Humanism as a Critique of Purposive Law] In Recht und Humanismus: Kolloquium für Gerhard Haney zum 70. Geburtstag [Law and Humanism: Colloquium for Gerhard Haney on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday], ed. Ralf Gröschner and Martin Morlok, 67–74. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Seelmann, Kurt. 2010. Die Verlagerung des Tabus ins Subjekt [The Relocation of the Taboo into the Subject]. In Festschrift für Winfried Hassemer [Festschrift for Winfried Hassemer], ed. Felix Herzog and Ulfried Neumann, 249–258. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.
Sen, Amartya Kumar. 2010. Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. Trans. Christa Krüger. München: C. H. Beck. Originally Published as The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.
Wolff, Ernst Amadeus. 1985. Das neuere Verständnis von Generalprävention und seine Tauglichkeit für eine Antwort auf Kriminalität [The Recent Understanding of General Prevention and its Suitability for a Response to Crime]. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft [Journal for the Entire Criminal Justice System] 97: 786–830.
Zaczyk, Rainer. 1992. Die Struktur des Rechtsverhältnisses (§§ 1 – 4) im Naturrecht Fichtes [The Structure of the Relation of Right (§§ 1 – 4) in Fichte’s Natural Law]. In Fichtes Lehre vom Rechtsverhältnis [Fichte’s Doctrine of the Relation of Right], ed. Michael Kahlo, Ernst Amadeus Wolff, and Rainer Zaczyk, 9–27. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
———. 1993. Strafrechtliches Unrecht und die Selbstverantwortung des Verletzten [Criminal Injustice and Responsibility of the Injured]. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.
———. 1998. Über Begründung im Recht [On Reasoning in Law]. In Festschrift für E. A. Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag am 1.10.1998 [Festschrift for E. A.Wolff on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday on October 1, 1998], ed. Rainer Zaczyk, Michael Kahlo, and Michael Köhler, 509–524. Heidelberg: Springer.
———. 2005. Zur Einheit von Freiheit und Sozialität [On the Unity of Freedom and Sociality]. In Gedächtnisschrift für Meinhard Heinze [Memorial Publication for Meinhard Heinze], ed. Alfred Söllner, et. al., 1111–1121. München: C.H. Beck.
———. 2006. Einheit des Grundes, Grund der Differenz von Moralität und Legalität [Unity of Reason, Reason of Difference Between Morality and Legality]. Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik [Yearbook of Law and Ethics] 14: 311–321.
———. 2010. Wie ist es möglich, ein Menschenrecht zu begründen? [How is it Possible to Ground a Human Right?]. In Festschrift für Winfried Hassemer [Festschrift for Winfried Hassemer], ed. Felix Herzog and Ulfried Neumann, 259–268. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.
———. 2014a. Anerkennung: Zum Gehalt des Begriffs für ein universales Rechtsprinzip [Recognition: On the Purport of the Term for an Universal Concept of Law]. In Das Recht als Form der Gemeinschaft freier Wesen als solcher [The Right as a Form of Community among Free Creatures as Such], ed. Thomas Sören Hoffmann, 25–39. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot. Cited as 2014a.
———. 2014b. Selbstsein und Recht: Eine rechtsphilosophische Untersuchung [Selfhood and Right: A Study in Legal Philosophy]. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
———. 2015. Zum Rechtsbegriff der Meinungsfreiheit [On the Legal Concept of Freedom of Expression]. In Festschrift für Walter Kargl zum 70. Geburtstag [Festschrift for Walter Kargl on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday], ed. Peter-Alexis Albrecht, Stefan Kirsch, Ulfrid Neumann, and Stefan Sinner, 599–608. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rösinger, L. (2018). The Law and Its Limits on the Path to Inclusive Diversity. In: Gertz, S., Huang, B., Cyr, L. (eds) Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education and Societal Contexts. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70175-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70175-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70174-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70175-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)