Reforming Citizenship

Helen MARGARITOU-ANDRIANESSI

University of Athens

Abstract: The ways of intercommunication regard moral and political virtues as well as the general principles of equality as criteria of a just society. Only a cooperative society can secure rights and primary goods, because the benefits are primarily collective benefits. Citizenship models provide guidance on strategies that prevent civil turmoil and social upheaval. Citizenship systems invest in statistics, fundamental commonalities, publicly designed interventions, common “ethos”, communicative actions, and biotechnology and lifeworld architectonic.

Keywords: Citizenship, primary needs, welfare, good, act-utilitarianism, adaptive preferences, new integrity, ontological realism, positivist epistemology, human nature, linguistic interventions, and life world.

1. PRIMARY SOURCES OF CITIZENSHIP

The «state of nature» is subject to a variety of interpretations. Philosophers seek to find the origins of social and political substance of individuals: they investigate the permanent abilities of human race and relative mental characteristics in the sense of active and passive nature of man. The human active and passive nature regards a) the way in which human beings behaved before the organization of political authority and b) the mass hysteria after natural disasters or economic crises. The citizenship in primitive times is a myth or illusion in transformation, namely an evolutionary encyclopedism of the history of components units of societies (clans or gentes), and origins of constitutional law. There is no difference in the ways of intercommunication of primitive men and civilized men (citizens). The ways of intercommunication regard the general principles of equality, the spirit of mutual goodwill and trade unions/groups that provide a basis for state actions[i].

Plato’s educational process involves active learning, self-examination, the desire for total acquisition of truth and the meaning of struggle between justice and injustice, through dialogue and interactive communication[ii]. Arête (virtue) must be infused in disciplines, as personal quality, parallel to a specialization (i.e. good citizen and good worker: Socratic philosophical discipleship as political awakening). The Allegory of the Cave is interpreted as a model of citizenship: Philosopher must rescue people who live in a shadowy world, but his life is threatened by a violent attack of “prisoners”. The struggle between light (knowledge) and shadow (passions, terror) is mirrored in human arguments and debates about social-political intrigue, emancipation, respect etc.[iii]

The “primacy of existence” in Aristotle's philosophy belongs to concrete things-in-motion and to animated beings. The «sense» of different things, different forms of states, different parties, different customs, different consequences, is always present in order to conceive the primary sense of the natural state of affairs and the common elements/laws of a mixed government in which every citizen exists among others, with no dominant class of citizens, since the law and order are restored only by individual virtues. The Aristotelian concept of state (πόλις) concerns interdependence of natural human conditions (soul and body), establishment of moral choices (liberal model of citizenship) and political participation in a just state, where Aristotle’s division into corrective justice, rectificatory justice and distributive justice is given. Constitutions and forms of government are established in order to regulate distributive justice (distribution of assets, mutual benefits, public offices and honor) that involve a consideration of  the personal values (talents and accomplishments) and an action of the excellent character and spirit necessary for achieving eudemonia (goodness) and Eunomia (good laws).  Friendship associations (concord) are a natural fact (a natural impulse to live together (συζῆν) and to make living well (εὖ ζῆν)). Citizenship means participating (μετέχειν) in public offices and decisions and not simply protecting someone against unjust acts or keeping something safe from harm or damage[iv]. According to the Aristotelian concept of polis, citizenship should only be granded to virtuous and contemplative men: citizens must balance their needs for power, against other needs – those for security, liberty, conventions (νόμοι) and peace.

Aquinas also employed the terms «primitive state» (statum primi) and «state of innocence» (statu innocentiae)[v] Eternal law, natural law divine law and human positive law formulate the basis of a liberal account of limited government. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan and in his earlier work On the Citizen, argued that all humans are by nature equal. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature (2nd Tr., §4). David Hume supports in A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) that human beings are naturally social. Rawls believes that people in the original position want a society where they have their basic rights protected.

There are needs to assure existence (food, water, health). The lack of water, a life of hardship, contagious diseases make human beings unhappy. We must have resources and private means to secure our social life against social upheavals. Distribution of goods according to needs consolidates democratic institutions. Welfarism according to individual preferences, unmeasured ambitions and exaggerations, destructs the distributive justice. Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen[vi] formulated the generalisable principle of actualisation of capabilities as a measure of just distributive arrangements in order to aim those with disabilities and to develop policy formation giving plans of human flourishing[vii].

                  2. CITIZENSHIP AND COMMON LEVELS OF WELFARE[viii]

Hobson[ix], Hobhouse[x], Tawney[xi]  - all social democrats - support state’s role in securing common levels of welfare. Others enforce arguments about paternalism that is modelled on state’s natural duties towards citizens treated not as free men but as minors. Berlin presents aspects of liberty theory that led political theorists to accede to the «higher self» of the state[xii].

The distribution of primary goods (Rawls: basic rights and liberties, freedom of movement and occupation, powers and prerogatives of offices, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect)[xiii] , and human capacities for functioning’s required to secure effectiveness of small groups. Individuals in groups act altruistically. Bio-altruism is a culture of positive dependency and prudence: Citizens believe that their lives go well, when other people’s lives go well too. Prudence tends to stabilize moral norms concerning criteria by which we ought to judge actions, choices and institutions. The normative question is connected with citizenship as regulation of a wide range of backgrounds that make political views balanced, as reconciliation of different interests and as «equality of conditions» or «equality of opportunity to enjoy a good life». We must classify the material and cultural conditions of good life: Material wealth regards technological developments that introduce new possibilities and facilitate the exchange of goods. People must be well-fed, well-clothed and well-housed and they must combine that with forms of freedom/liberty in order to perform tasks, jobs and duties. Only a cooperative society can secure primary goods, because the benefits are primarily collective benefits (priority of rights over goods). When groups of people are committed to working in cooperation and everyone’s utility is taken into account, citizens participate equally in a competitive system that promotes membership, better jobs and the moral language of compassion.

We must understand and respect other people’s ideas, opinions and feelings in order to act with liberal attitude towards equality of opportunity(Rawls), support  social arrangements and political changes, and provide incentives (economic, financial reward, tax etc.) to develop a large range of interests for the “good life” of beings. Comprehensive conceptions of the “good life” regard criteria for global distributive justice. The «criteria of a good life» correspond to universal concepts (prudence, good, bad, truth, reverence, moderation, self-control, self-evidence, self-government, self-seeking, common law, civilization etc.).

We can distinguish three kinds of knowledge of universal/general concepts in order to perform actions, to explain facts, to establish our arguments, to be good people and citizens:

 1) knowledge of necessary contingent universal truths, namely the pleadings (p.e. Contra factum non datur argumentum, proverbial phrase; Ex facto oritur jus, proverbial phrase);

2) knowledge of necessary non-universal truth (p.e. Plus valet quod in veritate est quam quod in opinione, Gaius; Qui jure suo utitur, neminem laedit, proverbial phrase);

 3) knowledge of contingent non-universal truth (p.e. When we take measures of precaution against risk)[xiv].  

3. POLITICAL THEORIES AND MODELS OF CITIZENSHIP

We prefer the “statistical” or “temporal frequency interpretation” of modality of citizenship: the model of possibility, the model of antecedent necessities and possibilities with respect to a certain moment of time (diachronic modalities), the model of possibility as non-contradictoriness, the model of relationships involved in ownership (legal meaning), the model of normalization (social meaning) and the model of membership (social-political meaning). Plato and Aristotle said that all generic possibilities will be actualized. What is necessary is always actual[xv].

Aristotle classifies the types of things and events on the basis of their occurrence. The temporal necessity of a present interest does not imply that such an interest necessarily takes place in circumstances of that type, because we must distinguish contingency from basic necessities and necessary inventions[xvi].

The model of possibility as potency prima facie regards all kinds of unrealized singular possibilities by referring to passive or active potencies as dispositional properties such countable singular possibility[xvii].

The idea of synchronic alternatives de dicto (in sensu composito) and de re (in sensu diviso) as something necessary per se and per accidens and sets of compossibilities[xviii] provides  the models a) of self-organization, b) of the ensemble of social relations (Gramsci[xix]) and c) of corporate ethics and logic of assimilation[xx].

All the thinking about possibilities is conducted in signs (words, symbols, structures, logical diagrams) and signs can be transformed in models. Thought must interpret signs with respect to membership and citizenship in a society (i.e. The biblical model of creativity generates workmanship model and the moral conception of property that arises from the maker’s rights).

Active Citizenship Composite Indication (ACCI) and Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB) are built using statistical data of the growing possibilities of multiple membership and participations.

Citizenship models provide guidance on strategies that prevent civil convulsions and social upheavals:

1) Act-utilitarianism. Human beings act in a way that controls the painful choices. They must desire the happiness and apply basic principles of utility as good faith, respect for general welfare, impartiality, philanthropism[xxi], obedience to rules[xxii].

Citizen will be considered as act-utilitarian and rule-utilitarian when he produces the best consequences for all[xxiii]. The question of «dirty hands» is connected with the infringement of human rights and Machiavellian concept of necessary evil when principles employ means of coercion. When citizens are sick and tired of politics, they are in a state of considerable agitation for political reform[xxiv].

2) Adaptive preferences. We must understand individual’s preferences through conversations, companionship and strategies for change (i.e. cross-cultural feminist interventions, NGOs, design of new institutions etc.). in order to control individual’s situations in the cases of internal and external minorities and to avoid coercions[xxv] («your money or your life», blackmail, duress etc.).

3) Against unencumbered self (the core of liberal thought and the “free rider problem”).  Our biological nature is connected with reasonable choices for social life. Egoism and self-interest are balanced by responsibilities and self-effacing modesty (Rawls), which is considered as a basic interpersonal behavioural category (i.e. groups over self needs)[xxvi].

4) Ownership. Antonio Rosmini-Serbati supports that we have a right to freedom of association and a right of social recognition. These two rights give rise to a third, the right to social ownership that means the right of every just society to acquire and preserve rights of ownership. Free exercise of this right binds individuals and regulates salutary antagonism; citizens can establish Conventional Right. In Rosminian concept of citizenship personal dignity guarantees intellectual and moral junctures between things and persons, but the right of ownership involves relationship among citizens[xxvii].

5) Conformances between private and public interest. Conformance is the educational process that relies on the psychology of reflex-actions and forms patterns of administration (modern politics as engendered through administration and transformation of conducts and opinions to political symbols <without?> raising the question of the morality of conformance). Citizens will find occasions for pleasure, while internal balances and tensions of perfections and imperfections provide symbols of common good as a wide spectrum of  divergent ideas, namely as an Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism[xxviii].

4. ELEMENTS OF A NEW INTEGRITY

Idiosyncracies generate interactive forms of life considered as communicative actions of all persons and social mechanisms of application of natural laws and moral rules in life.  We can rediscover the public sphere and citizenship with functional adaptions of the ontological and epistemological scheme: platonic idea of good (implications) – moral actions / interactions – effects / influences. Self-critical determination and limitation, reflective continuation of semantic events and institutionalized ideal opportunities or common sense of good are in favour of a legally constituted political community:  «particular interests are in progress in social, economic and techno political structures and they correspond to common interests (“transmission belt” that interacts with both private and public)»[xxix]. The“same way” to improve intelligence, education and interests, namely the citizenship, is a cooperation in which Ego relates to equal participation in public practices.

The same procedural principles secure a reciprocal arrangement and similar kinds of help or special rights (i.e. animal rights).

The «same» for all is an actual form of education or actual involvement of citizens in holistic approaches to pragmatic reasons of membership and intervention strategies.

The meaning of the existence regards the implication of «sameness»  and of analogies in the process of the actual truth of beings; this implication is based necessarily on this natural consequence: the prior in nature (necessary motion, energy) becomes posterior in time (proper changes, kinesis, goals, swerves) and «at the same time» the posterior in nature (capacities, possibilities) becomes prior in time (the «present now» of a being, the present possibility of transition from imperfection to model (paradigmatic) forms of life[xxx].

«The Phenomenological Interpretation of Ambiguity of “IΔΙΟΝ”»[xxxi] might be read as an offer to explain how particular sense of words, peculiar features (features of paintings), special and significant parts of languages and cultures have symbolic power in society for structural changes: contributing to the establishment of a new party, publishing books, participating in political decision making on the European and international level.  IΔION-MATRIX means abilities to understand and realize the way we process language and valid principles (idiosyncratically and commonly). Citizens can choose a spatial layout of “time stream” (i.e. series of events, people and things, downloaded files from Internet, streaming media, stream of consciousness)[xxxii]. This process involves models of understanding ourselves and the others: the model of human virtues associated with social movements of various kinds; the model of human activity-mixing with methods of culture data collections that performs appropriation of goods[xxxiii]; the neoaristotelian views of cultural adaptability (φρόνησις: prudence) in order to reach a consensus or to have the desired effects;  struggles for new interventions approaches and transformations (like publicly designed interventions that are more or less strategic transformations of space); law’s central role through self-interested strategic stances towards other persons; particular interests  and value-orientations; internal (ideology, natural  language) and external sources οf ΙΔΙΟΝ (political participation, artificial language); exploring multidimensional identities (modern sociopolitical construction of identity through the interplay of individual and environment).

Habermas’s lifeworld theory is a clear explanation of process of achieving self-understanding in relation to total commitments of community.

Analysis of lifeworld models, or structures, with a critical eye regards the objectivizing the moralizing and the aestheticizing interventions of  expert systems (i. e. computer system containing informations about particular problems of  citizens, so that it helps someone to find  solutions to conflicts, to rightful claims and to labour relations). Expert system is integrated through action group (i. e.  a team is in charge of legal or illegal activity). The legitimacy of an expert system depends on a) communicative power of people (i. e. the ability to communicate in a foreign language, the ability to pay, the manageability, the  adaptability, the companionship, the feasible plans, the defensible and reasonable ideas); b) intersubjective relations (i. e. personal, family and social relationships regard connections with actual needs in order to satisfy them) and c) solidarity (i e. we must intercommunicate in order to be jointly and severally responsible).

Expert systems may connect various interests of different individuals as participants in political and legal systems: popular culture or mass culture, customs and public arts share a cultural background of political and legal system in a particular society in the sense of multicultural life.

Habermas’s theory on Communication and citizenship is connected with discourse ethics as process of representation and transmission that seeks to control or to avoid the rhetorical modes of language. From a historical point of view communication regards rational beings, logical explanations, logical reactions, reasonable demands, ways of sending or receiving information etc.  The abilities of communication depend on 1) good reasons to do something, such as right ideas and actions; 2) sincere and common belief; 3)  experiences in living and  working with other people; 4) the conception of what people really feel and want, and capacity to think  through what social changes will mean for citizens; 5) alternative epistemic practices as modes of “working with”, “withdrawal”; 6) the cogency of arguments; 7) the control of self-interested motives; 8) the semantics of “inner nature” of beings and objects that comes out as influences, qualities of interactions, choices, pugnacity, vindications or mutual concessions; 9) equitable valuations of body and mind (somatic as well as cognitive contributions) and 10) interests in life-projects[xxxiv].

Communicative action claims and imposes mechanisms of civic and social integration in the sense of 1) disciplinary and legal procedures; 2) political and religious orientations towards conciliatory approaches to various contradictions; 3) groups in order to form or reform systems of rules; 4) explanations of increasing racial diversity and development of a constitutive model of relations; 5)  fulfilment of duties; 6) continuous transformation of interactions into forms of participation and communication; 7) dimensions of communicative experiences (good will against violence and adversity) in a coordinated approach to economic and social problems; 8) the establishment of supranational regimes; 9) accumulation and elaboration of facts, data and linguistic objects in order to reconstruct a more familiar reality of beings and 10) views widely shared, creative shaping of space and time, and applications of new technologies[xxxv].

The communicative competence regards citizenship as rights embodied in desirable democratic behaviour and institutionalized lifeworld holistic functions[xxxvi]. Habermas’s formal pragmatics concerns the double structure of speech, namely an ideal conception of truth, goodness and beauty regarding personalized or localized forms of life and the claims to rightness and sincerity in all speech acts. The culture is not associated only with national choices or localized forms of life (speech, food, dress, sports, arts) but can also give the meaningfulness of actions considered as sources of implicit assumptions about relationship, citizenship etc. Human actions can be goal-oriented. We can distinguish: actions towards success, social actions, actions-coordination, actions-intervention and interactions oriented towards reaching mutual understanding and respect. The types of interactions among citizens are considered as forms of speech acts (sentences meaning and expressive forms of language), forms of education and conditions of personal and social identities.

Communicative actions provide opportunities to the disadvantaged groups and marginalized populations, because human beings have reasons (willingness):

- to elaborate political practices (the institutionalized form of the political philosophy)

- to think about redefinition of life[xxxvii]

- to search contemporary crossroads of intercultural transmission (i.e. Mediterranean Crossings[xxxviii])

- to save epistemic normativity

- to help people to understand the nature of otherness

- to participate actively in social life

- to be acting against growing insecurity in urban areas[xxxix]

- to offer and sacrifice based[xl] on love

- to condemn neo-fascism

- to communicate in a second language

- to change the conditions of oppression from ordinary to extraordinary[xli]

- to enhance cooperation on all levels (association agreement and strategic modernization partnership)

- to govern the behaviour of the people they exclude

- to deny the state’s monopoly of the legitimate use of physical forces(narrow outlook of rationalization of means-end relationships[xlii])

Beyond moral skepticism we want to find the meaning of real-life of ordinary people through personal fulfillment and self-determination. We can recognize the basic elements of real-life: a) activities to connect sciences (i.e. medicine, information technology, economics, arts etc.) with real-life projects in order to apply paradigmatic functions to facts or particular situations; b) legal practices (real-life situations involve law as legal advice) and individual legal claims; c) actual procedures for people (i.e. health services and citizenship); d) reference solutions in order to ensure safety and labor rights.

Qualitative and quantitative approaches to citizenship are addressed by ontological realism, positivist epistemology, deterministic view of human nature, linguistic interventions and lifeworld architectonic, and they provide meaningful data about nature of human being (i.e. causes of behaviour)[xliii].

 a) Ontological realism[xliv]. The relations between idea and real world regard goals and achievements by way of examining human behaviour, fruitful conflicts and social practices that are mind-depended and they pose challenge to political reality.

b) Positivist epistemology[xlv] regards relations among academics and citizens.

c) Deterministic view of human nature[xlvi]. Human behaviour is determined by unconscious motivations, feelings, cognition and choices (combination of genetics, experiences and current conceptions of global acquaintanceship).

d) Linguistic Interventions. Historical analysis of key-words (i.e. «group ethos» against «free rider»[xlvii]) shows that they promote roles of citizens and influence intervention effectiveness with respect to reality, instruments and sciences. The compound of words (full of metaphors) generates beliefs and theories of reasoning and argumentation that must be explained beyond definitions and assertions, but they should not be vindicated as useful or logically justified. The key contribution of the linguistic intervention consists in finding the meaning of practices, choices and interests in order to protect both linguistic content of fundamental rights and communicative functions. By making it possible to find the meaning of necessary connection between public and private realm in given circumstances, linguistic intervention would involve similarities of behaviours, instrumental values of theories (i.e. media), mental states and dispositions to act in certain ways, norms and conventions.

e) Universal-global citizenship (lifeworld architectonic) means international experience about demographic questions, categorization of data, specific interests of global citizen(i.e. green policy jobs and internship, green consuming and ethical investing)[xlviii], graphic forms, statistics and typology of fundamental commonalities (connections with one or more countries and participations in the practices of other countries ) that realize the process of worldwide data transmission: knowledge, informations, interactions, reformations[xlix] etc. (i.e official discussions between the representatives of different groups or parties in order to recognize reality and to reach an agreement).

Typology of active global citizens: openness to multiple citizenship (citizenship as nationality, multiculturalism, citizenship identity and morality, E.U., world law and citizenship) interest in pragmatic solutions[l] through the relationship of norms and shared values, namely means and ends (Habermas’s lifeworld architectonic) emotional and intellectual engagement (i.e. in politics, in writing an article etc.)

The civil servant class (or the black-coated working class: David Lockwood) will acquire a consciousness that can direct the fates of countries. Consciousness is the condition of being awake and able to understand and defend only communicative practices among plural citizens (i.e. changes in material conditions, federal constitutions, voting rights and criminal procedures in the ongoing process of giving and asking for reasons) as well as to avoid romantism or «phantom revolution» [li].

Bibliography

AQUINAS, Thomas, Summa Theologica.

ARISTOTLE, Politics.

BARBERIS, C. Nicholas and THALER,  H. Richard, “A Survey of Behavioral Finance”, George M. CONSTANTINIDES, Milton HARRIS and Rene M. STULZ, (eds.), “Handbook of the Economics of Finance”, v. 1B, Financial Mark, 2003.

BERLIN, Isaiah, Four Essays on Liberty, Oxford University Press, 1969.

BLAIR, H. Douglas, “The Primary-Goods Indexation Problem in Rawls's Theory of Justice”, Theory and Decision, 24, 1988, pp. 239 – 252.

BRUMMER, James Corporate Responsibility and Legitimacy: An Interdisciplinary Analysis, Westport, Greenwood Press, 1991.

BYRAM, Michael and ZARATE, Genevieve, “Defining and assessing intercultural competence: some principles and proposals for the European context”, Language Teaching 29, 1997, pp. 14-18.

CHAMBERS, Iain, Mediterranean Crossings, Duke University Press, 2008.

COADY, A. J. Cecil, “Politics and the Problem of Dirty Hands”, Peter SINGER (ed.), “A Companion to Ethics”, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 373-383.

COOPER, Barry, Eric Voegelin and the Foundations of Modern Political Science, University of Missouri Press, 1999.

COOPER, Melinda, Life as Surplus, University of Washington Press, 2008.

CULLITY, Garrett, “Moral Free Riding”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24, 1995, pp. 3-34.

DAVIES, Lynn, “Global Citizenship: Abstraction or Framework for Action?” Educational Review, 58, 1, 2006, pp. 5-25.

DEARDORFF, Darla, “The Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence”, Journal of Studies in International Education, v. 10, no 3, 2006, pp. 241-266.

DEARDORFF, Darla, ”Understanding the Challenges of Assessing Global Citizenship”. Handbook of Practice and Research in Study Abroad, ed. by Ross Lewin, Routledge, 2009.

DERRIDA, Jacques, “Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority”, Drucia CORNELL, Michael ROSENFELD and David G. CARLSON (eds.), “Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice”, Routledge, London, 1992.

DWORKIN, Ronald, “What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 1981, pp. 283 – 345.

ELSTER, John, OFFE, Claus and PREUSS, K. Ulrich, Institutional Design in Post-communist Societies (Rebuilding the Ship at Sea), Cambridge, 1998.

FOUCAULT, Michel, Security, Territory, Population, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 2007.

FULTNER, Barbara, “Communicative Action and Formal Pragmatics”, Barbara FULTNER (ed.), “Jürgen Habermas, Key Concepts”, UK, Acumen, 2011, pp. 54-73.

GASKIN, C. A. John, Thomas Hobbes, Human Nature and De Corpore Politico, Oxford World’s Classics, 1999.

GAUTHIER, David, Morals by Agreement, New York, Clarendon Press, 1986.

GEORGE, Vic, Major Thinkers in Welfare: Contemporary Issues in Historical  Perspective, Policy Press, 2010.

GINTIS, Herbert, “Behavioral Ethics Meets Natural Justice”, Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 2006, 5, 1, pp. 5 – 32.

HABERMAS,  Jurgen, Erkenntnis und Interests, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1968.

HACKING, Ian, The Social Construction of What? , Harvard University Press, 1999.

HARSANYI, C. John, “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility”,  Journal of Political Economy, 62, 1955, pp. 309 – 321.

HAYSOM, Keith, “Civil Society and Social Movements”, Barbara FULTNER (ed.), “Jürgen Habermas, Key Concepts”, UK, Acumen, 2011, pp. 177-195.

HINTIKKA, Jaakko, Time and Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973.

HOBSON, A. John, Critical Assessments of Leading Economists, ed. By John C. Wood and Robert D. Wood, Routledge, 2003.

HOBSON, A. John, The Social Problem: Life and Work, London, Nisbet, 1901.

HOOKER, Brad, Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality, Oxford University Press, 2000.

KAHNEMAN, Daniel and TVERSKY, Amos, Choices, Values, and Frames, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

KHADER, Serene, Adaptive Preferences and Women’s empowerment, Oxford University Press, 2011.

LANGSDORF, Lenore, “Reconstructing the Fourth Dimension (A Deweyan critique of Habermas’s conception of communicative action)”, Mitchell ABOULAFIA, Myra BOOMAN and Catherine KEMP (eds.), “Habermas and Pragmatism”, London, Routledge, 2002, pp. 141- 164.

LEVINE, George Lewis, “Science and Citizenship: Karl Pearson and the Ethics of Epistemology”, Modernism/modernity, v.3, 3, 1996, pp. 137-143.

LUND, Brian, Understanding State Welfare. Social Justice or Social Exclusion? Sage Publications, 2002.

LYONS, David, “Utility as a Possible Ground of Rights”, Nous, 14, 1980, pp. 14-28. MACINTYRE, Alasdair, Dependent Rational Animals; Why Human Beings Need the Virtues, Chicago, Open Court, 1999.

MAHONEY A. Timothy, “Do Plato’s philosopher-rulers sacrifice self-interest to justice?” Phronesis, 37, 1992, pp. 265-282.

MARGARITOU-ANDRIANESSI, Helen, The Phenomenological Interpretation of Ambiguity of “ΙΔΙΟΝ-MATRIX”, Athens, Armos, 2013 (Selection of Primary Sources of “IΔΙΟΝ-MATRIX” Principle: www.margaritou.com/on line publications).

MARGARITOU-ANDRIANESSI, Helen, “The Sense of Justice and the Research of Meaning of Human Rights”, Rivista Rosminiana, I, 2012, σσ. 89-91.

MARGARITOU - ANDRIANESSI, Helen, «The Significance of the Present Time in Aristotle’s Philosophy», Φιλοσοφία (Academy of Athens), 40, 2010, pp. 307-315.

MARGARITOU-ANDRIANESSI, Helen, Metaphysical, Structural and Pragmatic Realism,(Genetic Interpretation), Athens, Armos, 2011.

MILLGRAM, Elijah, “Mill’s Proof of the Principle of Utility”, Ethics, 110, 2000, pp. 282-310.

MOORE, E. Kevin, The Spatial Language of Time: Metaphor, Metonymym and Frames of Reference, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 2014.

NAESS, Arne, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle, Cambridge University Press, 1989.

NORMAN, Richard, Free and Equal, Oxford University Press, 1987.

NUSSBAUM, Martha, “Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Suppl. Vol., 1988, pp. 145 – 184.

NUSSBAUM, Martha,  The Fragility of Goodness. Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 1986.

NUSSBAUM, Martha, SEN, Amartya (eds.), Quality of Life,  Oxford, Clarendon, 1993.

O’BYRNE, J. Darren, Dimension of Global Citizenship: Political Identity Beyond the Nation-State, London, Frank Cass & Co Ltd, 2003.

PATTERSON, Richard, “Philosophos agonistes: imagery and moral psychology in Plato’s Republic”, Journal of History of Philosophy, 35, 1997, pp. 327-354.

RAWLS, John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge,  Harvard University Press, 2001.

RONCAGLIA, Gino, Palestra rationis. Discussioni su natura della copula e modalità nella filosofia `scolastica' tedesca del XVII secolo, Florence, Leo S. Olschki, 1996.

ROSMINI-SERBATI, Antonio, The Philosophy of Right, v. 2, Rights of the Individual, transl. by D. Cleary and T. Watson, Rosmini House, Durham, 1993.

SEAMAN, W. John, “L. T. Hobhouse and the Theory of ‘Social Liberalism’”, Canadian Journal of Political Science, v. 11, 4, 1978, pp. 777-801.

SOLDATOV, V. Alexander, “The Anthropic Principle and the Plurality of Worlds, Diotima, 24, 1996, σσ. 54-58.

SOTIROPOULOS, A. Dimitri, The State and Reform in Southern Europe: Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, Athens, Potamos, 2007 (in Greek).

STARMER,  Chris, “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk”,  Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 2, 2000, pp. 332- 382.

SZLEZÁK A. Thomas, “Psyche-Polis-Kosmos”. Osservazioni sull’unità del pensiero platonico, transl. by Elisabetta Cattanei, Polis e Cosmo in Platone (recueil), 1997.

TERRILL, Ross, R. H. Tawney and His Times. Socialism as Fellowship, Harvard College, 1973.

VALLENTYNE, Peter, “Capabilities versus Opportunities for Well-being”, Journal of Political Philosophy, 13, 2005, pp. 359 – 371.

VERMUNT, Riël, The Good, the Bad and the Just: How Modern Men Shape Their Word, Ashgate, 2014.

WEISS, Gail Refiguring the Ordinary, Indiana University Press, 2008.

WERTHEIMER, Alan, Coercion, Princeton, 1987.

WIJZE de, Stephen, “Dirty Hands:Doing Wrong to do Right”, Igor PRIMORATZ (ed.), “Politics and Morality”, N.Y., Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp.3-19.