<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Killer Identities</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/life/killer-identities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/life/killer-identities/</link>
	<description>European Opinion</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: mike</title>
		<link>http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/life/killer-identities/#comment-10114</link>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fistfulofeuros.net/wordpress/?p=1756#comment-10114</guid>
		<description>The idea of a 'moral contract' and of corresponding 'rights and responsibilities' disturbs me - in any context, not just the context of multiculturalism. For how long is a 'moral contract' supposed to last? As long as it can? And in that case should we not be better off with the term 'moral experiment'? The language of rights and responsibilities also disturbs me, as it usually stems from politicians and others in power - where once we spoke of liberty and self-reliance we now talk about state-enforced rights and responsibilities. These may be 'democratically' decided upon (using that word generously) but they serve to further reduce the sphere of liberty in which we live.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea of a &#8216;moral contract&#8217; and of corresponding &#8216;rights and responsibilities&#8217; disturbs me - in any context, not just the context of multiculturalism. For how long is a &#8216;moral contract&#8217; supposed to last? As long as it can? And in that case should we not be better off with the term &#8216;moral experiment&#8217;? The language of rights and responsibilities also disturbs me, as it usually stems from politicians and others in power - where once we spoke of liberty and self-reliance we now talk about state-enforced rights and responsibilities. These may be &#8216;democratically&#8217; decided upon (using that word generously) but they serve to further reduce the sphere of liberty in which we live.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/life/killer-identities/#comment-10113</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fistfulofeuros.net/wordpress/?p=1756#comment-10113</guid>
		<description>Interesting post.

Martin Wolf characterises multilateralism as "We must agree, within reason, to differ. In essence, this means that we agree more on procedural norms than on substantive ones. Moreover, we enshrine those procedural norms within institutions."

It seems to me that this is fairly close to what Maalouf is proposing for culture. The big question is whether (and then how) for issues of "identity", "culture" and "values" isolating procedural from substantive norms is possible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting post.</p>
<p>Martin Wolf characterises multilateralism as &#8220;We must agree, within reason, to differ. In essence, this means that we agree more on procedural norms than on substantive ones. Moreover, we enshrine those procedural norms within institutions.&#8221;</p>
<p>It seems to me that this is fairly close to what Maalouf is proposing for culture. The big question is whether (and then how) for issues of &#8220;identity&#8221;, &#8220;culture&#8221; and &#8220;values&#8221; isolating procedural from substantive norms is possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
