Liberal Laws V. the Law of Large Numbers, or How Demographic Rhetoric Arouses Anxiety (in Germany)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This paper presents the metaphysics of liberal rights reasoning on the one hand and that ofdemographic reasoning on the other, as exemplifying two worldviews that both compete and com-plement each other in the contemporary German public debate on demographic decline.First, this essay outlines the way in which liberal theorists of various outlooks, perfectionist andneutralist alike, assume that a wide range of rights serves not only the interests of those individu-als who possess them, but that it constitutes the foundations of a just and stable political order ingeneral and therefore is to the advantage of everyone.Second, the essay explains how demographic reasoning questions the assumption of harmonyshared by the liberal approaches.Third, it provides an impression of the way in which demographic arguments have been deployedin the public sphere in Germany in the last few years. These arguments associate the autonomyof women with the demise of Germany. They claim that by encouraging women to pursue self-realization as self-interested individuals, the modern secular ethos of Germany as a democraticwelfare society may be self-destructive in the long run, since it leads to sub-replacement fertility.Finally, the essay stresses that liberal and demographic perspectives share a “blindness” of his-torical events. In response, the conclusion brings history back in, by historicizing both demo-graphic reasoning and demographic developments in Germany, with the aim of defusing some ofthe anxieties that may have been aroused by the current debate
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-34
Number of pages34
JournalLaw & Ethics of Human Rights
Volume2
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Liberal Laws V. the Law of Large Numbers, or How Demographic Rhetoric Arouses Anxiety (in Germany)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this