The cinematography art as a field of visualization and interpretation of political ethics

Authors

  • Andriy Garbadyn Ivan Franko National University ofLviv, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-3209.2.2018.161748

Keywords:

political ethics, cinema, human rights, bioethics, institutions

Abstract

The main purpose: The main purpose of the article is to substantiate the basic approaches to the interpretation of political ethics and to explore their visualization and interpretation in the cinema. Methodology: The framework of this article consist comprehensive multidisciplinary approach and methodological tools developed by M. Mamardashvili, А. Badiou, S. Zizek, C. Schmitt, M. Nussbaum, P. Sloterdijk, and R. Taller. The scientific novelty of the research is founded on distinguishing the ethics of individual and political ethics, which is conceptualized through interaction with other people, on the one hand, and institutions, on the other hand. The ethics of duty, the ethics of human rights, the ethics of economic necessity, bioethics, ethics of public opinion, ethics of institutions were found out. Conclusion: It was proved that ethics as a universal concept does not exist. It is concretized in clear situations and dilemmas while gaining a political definition. Therefore, all ethics can be considered as a political ethics. Several types of political ethics, including ethics of duty, ethics of human rights, economic necessity ethics, bioethics, ethics of public opinion, institutions ethics have been described in the research. The article explained how ethics can be transformed into political ethics on the ground of visualization in cinema. Eventually, several variations of political ethics have been interpreted on the basis of cinema, have been formed the boundaries of privacy inthem.

Author Biography

Andriy Garbadyn, Ivan Franko National University ofLviv

PhD in Political Science, asossiate professor of Department of Theory and History of Political Science

References

БадьюА. Этика: очерк осознании зла [Електронний ресурс]/А.Бадью; пер. сфр. В.Е.Лапицкого. – СПб.: Machina, 2006. – 124 с.

Жижек С. Возвышенный Объект Идеологии / С. Жижек. – М.: Издательство “Художественный журнал”, 1999. – 237с.

Мамардашвили М. Кантианские вариации / М. Мамардашвили. – М.: "Аграф", 2002. – 320с.

Нуссбаум, М. Не ради прибыли: зачем демократии нужны гуманитарные науки / М.Нуссбаум ; пер. с англ. М. Бендет [под науч. ред. А. Смирнова]. – М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2014. – 192с.

Слотердайк, П. Критика цинического разума / П. Слотердайк ; пер. с нем. А. Перцева. – Екатеринбург: У-Фактория, 2009. – 800с.

Соловьев Э.И. Кант: взаимодополнительность морали и права. / Э.Соловьев.–М.: Наука, 1992.–216с.

Талер Р. Новая поведенческая экономика. Почему люди нарушают правила традиционной экономики и как на этом заработать [Електронний ресурс] / Р. Талер. – Эксмо, 2017. – 368с.

Талер Р., Санстейн К. Nudge. Архитектура выбора. Как улучшить наши решения о здоровье, благо-состоянии и счастье / Р. Талер, К. Санстейн ; пер. с англ. Е. Петровой ; [науч. ред. С. Щербаков]. – М.: Манн, Иванов и Фербер, 2017. – 240 с.

Шмитт К. Понятие политического / К. Шмитт. – СПб.: Наука, 2016. – 568с.

Хома Н. М. Глобальне громадянське суспільство: утопія чи перспективна реальність? / Вісник Національної академії керівних кадрів культури і мистецтв. 2015. – Вип. 2. – С.165-169.

JollsCh., Sunstein C.R., ThalerR.H. A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics [Electronic resource] Jolls Ch., Sunstein C. R., Thaler R. H. // Stanford Law Review. – 1998. – Vol. 50(5). – P. 1471–1550.

Rao N, Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law [Electronic resource] / N. Rao. // Notre Dame Law Review. – 2011. – Vol. 86. – No. 1. – P.183-271.

Žižek,S.Against Human Rights [Electronic resource] /S.Žižek.//New Left Review.–2005.–Vol.34.–P.115-131.

Badiou,A.(2006). Ethics. Saint Petersburg: Machina. Retrieved from http://klex.ru/fne [in Russian].

Žižek,S.(1999). The Sublime Object of Ideology. Moscow: Khudozhestvennyy zhurnal [in Russian].

Mamardashvili, M. (2002). Cartesian Reflections. Moscow: Agraf [in Russian].

Nussbaum, M. (2014). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities (A. Smirnova ed.). Moscow: Izd. dom Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [in Russian].

Sloterdijk, P. (2009). Critique of Cynical Reason. Moscow: U-Faktoriya [inRussian].

Solovev, E. (1992). Kant: Complementarity of morality and rights. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].

Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. Moscow: Eksmo. Retrieved from http://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_book/?art=22960394 [inRussian].

Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Мoscow: Ivanov & Ferber [in Russian].

Schmitt, K. (2016). The Concept of the Political. Saint Petersburg: Nauka [inRussian].

Homa, N. M. (2015). Global civil society: utopia or promising reality? / National Academy of Managerial Staff of Culture and Arts Herald, № 2. P. 165-169 [in Ukrainian].

Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (1998). A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471-1550. [in English].

Rao, N. (2011). Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law. Notre Dame Law Review, 40(1), 183-271. [in English].

Žižek,S.(2005).AgainstHumanRights.NewLeftReview,34,115-131.RetrievedMarch21,2018 [in English].

Published

2018-04-24

Issue

Section

Культурологія