Achieving peace in contemporary societies has become a fundamental issue in political and ethical thought due to complexities in identity, cultural pluralism, and political challenges. This article focuses on how the concepts of the "Self" and the "Other" are defined, and examines the impact of ethical readings on the possibility of achieving peace. The main research question is: How can ethical readings of the "Self" and the "Other" contribute to achieving peace in contemporary societies? This article explores the dominant frameworks for confronting the "Other" through a comparative analysis of the ideas of Carl Schmitt (friend/enemy dichotomy), Liberalism (rational consensus), and Chantal Mouffe (agonistic pluralism). Then, in contrast to these approaches, it introduces the responsibility-centered ethics of Emmanuel Levinas as a fundamental alternative. The hypothesis is that although each of these approaches offers a way to manage differences, stable peace is only possible through understanding the "Other" as an ethical existence that has precedence over the "Self," and establishing a relationship based on empathy and asymmetrical responsibility, as explained by Levinas. Using a qualitative content analysis method, this research shows that the transition from a purely political logic to an ethical logic is a necessary condition for peaceful coexistence and can lead to the development of theories related to dialogue and justice in human relations.
Reza Isa Nia (Sat,) studied this question.