Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2017
-
(2017): The Rawlsian Critique of Utilitarianism. A Luhmannian Interpretation. In: Journal of Business Ethics 142 (1), S. 25-35. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2786-y
Abstract: The present paper builds on the Rawlsian critique of utilitarianism in order to identify the moral implications of Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory. While Luhmann aptly discerned the pervasive problems of the precarious system-environment relations throughout the modern society, he took moral communication to be person-centered and thus ill-equipped to deal with these problems. At the same time, the Rawlsian possibility of sacrificing fundamental liberties for the sake of economic gains not only exemplifies the Luhmannian precariousness of the relations of the economic system to its societal environment, but also shows this precariousness to be a moral problem. Thus, from the systems-theoretic perspective, the Rawlsian idea of justice denotes the moral dimension of the capacity of the societal environment to carry the economic system. More generally, the proposed complementarity between Rawls and Luhmann allows to see the precariousness of system-environment relations, for any type of social system, as a moral problem. Two implications follow. First, the morally problematic manifestations of the precarious system-environment relations are not limited to the Rawlsian case of the discrimination of the least advantaged groups but rather include a broad range of social costs and damaging effects of business on society and nature. Second, and related, the proposed systems-theoretic perspective explicates the moral value of sustainability of the economic as well as other social systems in their environment, societal and ecological alike.
Keywords: BUSINESS, business ethics, ethics, CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP, Disziplin, Economic system, Ethik, Gesellschaftsprofit, John Rawls, Justice, Kosten-Nutzen, Luhmann, Moral, moralische Dimension, Moralphilosophie, Morals, Moraltheorie, Niklas Luhmann, Philosophie, Rawls, SOCIAL COSTS, social systems, Societal environment, SYSTEMS, Utilitarianism, Utilitarismus 2016
-
(2016): Foundations of Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems. In: Philosophy of the Social Sciences 29 (4), S. 481-516. DOI: 10.1177/004839319902900402
Abstract: Of all contemporary social theorists, Luhmann has best understood the centrality of the concept of meaning to social theory and has most extensively worked out the notion's implications. However, despite the power of his theory the theory suffers from difficulties impeding its reception. This article attempts to remedy this situation with some critical arguments and proposals for revision. First, the theory Luhmann adopted from biology as the basis of his own theory was a poor choice since that theory has no explanatory power, being purely descriptive; furthermore, that theory is fundamentally flawed since it implies that viruses are impossible. Second, Luhmann's theory of meaning cannot coherently make the social domain autonomous as he desires since Luhmann does not take into account the distinction between syntax and semantics. By introducing this distinction, making clear that social systems consist of rules, not just communications, and raising the rule concept to the same prominence in social theory as those of actor and system, autonomy can be maintained while avoiding the counterintuitive aspects of Luhmann's theory.
2015
-
(2015): On the distinction between distinction and division. In: Technoetic Arts 13 (3), S. 245-251. DOI: 10.1386/tear.13.3.245_1
Abstract: In this article I discuss the use of distinctions as a method for reasoning. First I trace the role of distinctions in three different theories: the formal calculus of George Spencer Brown, the constructivist biology of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems. In the second part, play is used as an example to illustrate the concept. In particular, I contrast walking through a series of distinctions with traditional ways of argumentation based on definitions. Finally, I hint at the role of distinctions in a metaphysical sense.
2014
-
(2014): Social Autopoiesis?. In: CONSTRUCTIVIST FOUNDATIONS (9/2), S. 153-166
Abstract: In previous papers, I suggested six rules proposed by Varela, Maturana and Uribe as a validation test to assess the autopoietic nature of a complex dynamic system. Identifying possible non-biological autopoietic systems is harder than merely assessing self-organization, existence of embodied boundaries and some observable autonomous behavioural capabilities: any rigorous assessment should include a close observation of the "intra-boundaries" phenomenology in terms of components' self-production, their spatial distribution and the temporal occurrence of interaction events. >Problem . Under which physical and components' relational conditions can some social systems be properly considered as autopoietic unities compliant with the six rules? >Results . Dynamic systems can be classified according to "degrees of autonomous behaviour" that they may acquire as a result of the emergence of organizational closure (i.e., autonomy). Also, the different "degrees of attainable systemic autonomy" depend on the "degrees of autonomy" shown by a system's dynamic components. For human social systems, a necessary balance between individuals' autonomy and the heteronomous behaviour brought about on people by social norms (laws, culture, tradition or coercion) sets limits to the "degree of systemic autonomy" that human organizations may acquire. Therefore social systems, defined as dynamic systems composed of physical agents, could not attain the high "levels of systemic autonomy" ascribable to autopoietic systems without constraining the autonomy of agents to "levels" that are incompatible with spontaneous human behaviour. Also, social organizations seen as composed of physical agents interacting in physical space cannot be construed as autopoietic systems. Alternatively, if seen as composed of "process-like" entities, where agents participate as actors within processes, some social systems could be described as autopoietic wholes existing in the abstract space in which we distinguish interactions between processes, provided that we can assess compliance with the rules for some specific cases. >Implications . These conclusions contribute to the debate on the possible autopoietic nature of some human social systems and to grasping the opportunity to shift focus to the more interesting issue of the "degrees of systemic autonomy" that human organizations could acquire (if needed) without imposing unbearable limitations on the autonomy of human actors. Also, the conceptual framework of this explanatory approach could be used in practical terms to assist the development of new dynamic modelling languages capable of simulating social systems.
Keywords: autonomy, Autopoiesis, causation, complex dynamic system, degrees of autonomous behaviour, Disziplin, heteronomy, Luhmann, Maturana, Multi-Agenten-Systeme, organizational closure, Philosophie, self-organization, simulating social systems, simulation, social system, social systems, Soziologie, Technikphilosophie, Varela 2007
-
(2007): Theorien gesellschaftlicher Differenzierung. Lehrbuch ; René-König-Lehrbuchpreis der DGS. 3. Aufl.. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss
- <<
- <
- 1