Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-04T21:02:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 17 / Milton Valente / Uma distribuição de renda mais justa tem sido debatida como forma de viabilizar as sociedades democráticas com características liberais. O problema a ser examinado nesta investigação é justamente as possibilidades que têm os governos chamados liberais, de promoverem reformas que resultem em tais possibilidades. Neste sentido, nós estaremos dando enfoque à obra Uma teoria da justiça do filósofo norte-americano John Rawls. Inserida na tradição contratualista, elabora uma proposta de justiça como eqüidade, colocando-se como uma alternativa à doutrina utilitarista. Governos democráticos, conforme Rawls, devem ser garantidores de políticas públicas que tenham como conseqüência uma firme justiça distributiva. Esses governos devem ser plurais, e conflitos de ordem filosófica, moral ou religiosa não devem impedir um acordo razoável como forma de viabilizar a estrutura básica da sociedade. Utilizando-se de um artifício racional, em que os acordos celebrados são válidos para todos, Rawls cria o artifício da posição ori / A fairer income distribution has been debated as a way of making viable the democratic societies with liberal characteristics. The problem to be examined in this investigation is exatly the possibilities that the governments called liberal have, promoting reforms that result in such possibilities. In this way, we will be giving focus on the work A theory of justice from the American philosopher Jhon Rawls. Inserted in the contractualist traditions, it elaborates a justice as fairness, placing itself as an alternative to the utilitarian doctrine. The democratic governments, according to Rawls, must ensure that public politics have a consistent distributive justice as a consequence. These governments must be plural, and conflits of philosophical, moral or religious order must not prevent a reasonable agreement as a way of making viable a basic structure of the society. Using a rational artifice in which the agreementes are valid for everyone, Rawls creates the artifice of original position. In this situation th

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2017-09-28T16:48:41Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Analice Cabral Costa Andrade_.pdf: 544151 bytes, checksum: 520fbd750df60e0c64804793014968c7 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-09-28T16:48:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Analice Cabral Costa Andrade_.pdf: 544151 bytes, checksum: 520fbd750df60e0c64804793014968c7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-07-11 / Nenhuma / Essa dissertação se prende a analisar a teoria da justiça de John Rawls e seus conceitos de véu da ignorância, consenso sobreposto, justiça como equidade e contrato social, compreendendo qual o significado do direito das minorias e analisando a teoria da justiça de Rawls frente ao ordenamento atual de direito (direito geral), verificando a relação desta com o direito das minorias. Para o Direito, precisa-se proteger a minoria da possibilidade de discriminação. A importância, portanto, desse assunto é analisar os princípios jurídicos e os ideais filosóficos da teoria de justiça de John Rawls a fim de esclarecer a relação entre os direitos das maiorias( geral) e o direito das minorias e a aplicação do consenso sobreposto como meio de diminuir as diferenças que o direito quer instituir. / This dissertation relates to analyze the theory of justice of John Rawls and his concepts of veil of ignorance, overlapping consensus, justice as fairness and social contract, understanding the meaning of the rights of minorities and analyzing the theory of justice Rawls against the land current law (general right), verifying its relation to the rights of minorities. To the right, one must protect the minority of the possibility of discrimination. The importance, therefore this issue is to analyze the legal principles and philosophical ideals of John Rawls theory of justice in order to clarify the relationship between the rights of the majority (general) and the rights of minorities and the application of the overlapping consensus as a means to reduce the differences that the right wants to impose.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2017-11-14T11:11:25Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Vinícius Custódio Rios.pdf: 368601 bytes, checksum: 9f08836ea8dd19314a14467dca19bcf8 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-11-14T11:11:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Vinícius Custódio Rios.pdf: 368601 bytes, checksum: 9f08836ea8dd19314a14467dca19bcf8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-10-27 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / The objective of this work is to study a model of justice that can be objectively appropriated by modern democratic society, addressing the application of justice by the judiciary, providing a reflection on the meaning of some terms such as justice, a sense of justice and equity. To do this study will be used the theory of justice developed by John Rawls. We will seek to identify the applicability of John Rawls' theory of justice in judicial decisions, characterizing and highlighting the relevance of equity so that there is an appropriate and fair mechanism in conflict resolution. The research methodology used to carry out this dissertation is the bibliographical one with doctrinal and jurisprudential grounds, under a deductive and in some points inductive approach / Este trabalho tem por objetivo estudar um modelo de justiça que possa ser objetivamente apropriado pela sociedade democrática moderna abordando a aplicação da justiça pelo judiciário propiciando uma reflexão sobre a significação de alguns termos tais como justiça, senso de justiça, equidade. Para realizar esse estudo utilizar-se-á a teoria da justiça desenvolvida por John Rawls. Buscaremos identificar a aplicabilidade da teoria da justiça proposta por John Rawls nas decisões judiciais, caracterizando e evidenciando a relevância da equidade para que haja um mecanismo apropriado e justo nas soluções de conflitos. A metodologia de pesquisa utilizada para a realização dessa dissertação é a bibliográfica com fundamentação doutrinária e jurisprudencial, sob uma abordagem dedutiva e em alguns pontos indutiva

Submitted by Diego Barros (diegobbarros@ufpa.br) on 2015-03-18T12:12:28Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22974 bytes, checksum: 99c771d9f0b9c46790009b9874d49253 (MD5) Dissertacao_MonetizacaoRiscosMeio.pdf: 1305651 bytes, checksum: cfb61fda688d11d0657afa382cfa2e4d (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ana Rosa Silva (arosa@ufpa.br) on 2015-03-19T13:32:27Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22974 bytes, checksum: 99c771d9f0b9c46790009b9874d49253 (MD5) Dissertacao_MonetizacaoRiscosMeio.pdf: 1305651 bytes, checksum: cfb61fda688d11d0657afa382cfa2e4d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-19T13:32:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22974 bytes, checksum: 99c771d9f0b9c46790009b9874d49253 (MD5) Dissertacao_MonetizacaoRiscosMeio.pdf: 1305651 bytes, checksum: cfb61fda688d11d0657afa382cfa2e4d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / CNPq - Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / Esta dissertação trata da Monetização dos Riscos no Meio Ambiente do Trabalho – fenômeno que autoriza a compensação financeira para o trabalhador em razão de sua exposição a riscos existentes no local de trabalho –, sob a ótica do Liberalismo Igualitário de John Rawls e Ronald Dworkin. O primeiro capítulo analisa e compara as teorias liberais igualitárias apresentadas por John Rawls e Ronald e Dworkin com a teoria da Análise Econômica do Direito de Richard Posner. O segundo capítulo demonstra quais são as práticas do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro com relação à monetização dos riscos. O terceiro capítulo realiza uma análise normativa e principiológica para responder se há necessidade de reformular tais práticas, analisando, ainda, quais são os óbices à efetivação da proteção aos trabalhadores. / This thesis analyses the Risks Monetization in the Work Environment – phenomenon that authorizes the financial compensation for the worker due to his exposure to risks existing in the place of work –, which is done by the optics of the Egalitarian Liberalism of John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. The first chapter analyses and compares the liberal egalitarian theories presented by John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin with the Economic Analysis of the Law theory of Richard Posner. The second chapter demonstrates which are the brazilian juridical practices related to the risks monetization. The third chapter makes a norm and principles based analysis in order to answer if it is necessary to reform those practices, analyzing, yet, which are the obstacles for the effective workers protection.

Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2016-08-22T19:42:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Fabrício José Rodrigues de Lemos_.pdf: 1128559 bytes, checksum: b0f111c3f1defefc8a80daa19003f118 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-22T19:42:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Fabrício José Rodrigues de Lemos_.pdf: 1128559 bytes, checksum: b0f111c3f1defefc8a80daa19003f118 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-30 / Nenhuma / O filósofo norte-americano John Rawls possui o grande mérito de revitalizar as discussões sobre justiça com a publicação de sua obra A theory of justice, de 1971. Nela, lançou base à teoria de justiça como equidade, sendo que, desde então, muito se comentou acerca das responsabilidades morais das entidades e indivíduos no plano doméstico. Em um artigo publicado em 1993 e, em 1999, transformado na obra Law of peoples and the public reason revisited, Rawls ampliou o escopo de suas preocupações e dissertou acerca das responsabilidades dos povos uns para os outros. Nas últimas duas décadas, a teoria de justiça global consolidou-se como um legítimo campo de indagações filosóficas, que visa possibilitar uma melhor compreensão das relações globais e do ambiente globalizado: as profundas modificações oriundas da mudança do paradigma westfaliano em razão da interconectividade e do aumento da complexidade das relações no plano global levaram críticos como Thomas Pogge a se questionar acerca da nova dinâmica mundial. A assunção de responsabilidades, tanto estatais e corporativas quanto as individuais, fazem parte da temática. Nesse sentido, com método de pesquisa eminentemente bibliográfico e documental, partindo da teoria rawlsiana, a dissertação visa demonstrar de que maneira essa mudança de paradigma ocorreu, tendo como referenciais teóricos tanto John Rawls quanto um dos maiores expoentes da teoria de justiça global, o filósofo alemão, atualmente radicado nos Estados Unidos, Thomas Pogge. Assim, a dissertação apresentará as mais recentes formulações teoréticas acerca do que pode ser chamado de justiça global e investigará as críticas e os avanços da obra de Pogge em relação ao pensamento de Rawls. / The American philosopher John Rawls has the great merit of revitalizing justice discussions with the publication of his 1971 work A theory of justice. In it, he gave base to theory of justice as fairness, and, since then, much was said about the moral responsibilities of organizations and individuals in domestic field. In an article published in 1993 and, in 1999, transformed in the work Law of peoples and the public reason revisited, Rawls expanded the scope of his concerns and lectured about the responsibilities of peoples to each other. In the last two decades, the global justice theory has established itself as a legitimate field of philosophical inquiry, which aims to enable a better understanding of global relations and the global environment: the profound changes arising from the change of the westphalian paradigm due to the interconnectivity and the increasing complexity of relationships globally, led critics like Thomas Pogge to wonder about the new world dynamics. The intake of responsibilities, both state and corporate, as well of the individual, are all part of the theme. In this sense, with the research method of eminently bibliographic research and documental, from the starting point of Rawlsian theory, the dissertation aims to demonstrate how this paradigm shift occurred, with the theoretical references of both John Rawls as of one of the greatest exponents of the global justice theory, the German philosopher, currently living in the United States, Thomas Pogge. Thus, the dissertation will present the latest theoretical formulations on what can be called global justice and will investigate the critiques and advances of Pogge's work in relation to Rawls‟s thinking.

我國行政機關工程獎金制度肇始於民國60年間，時值政府積極推動經濟計畫，籌建各項重要基礎工程建設，為鼓勵各機關辦理各項建設工程，提高工作效能，發展工程技術，行政院爰函頒相關工程獎金支給規定據以實施。嗣因時空環境變遷及政府待遇政策轉型，時至今日，現存的工程獎金支給規定，包括「中央政府各工程機關員工工程獎金發給要點」、「中央各級行政機關工程獎金支給原則」及「地方各級行政機關工程獎金支給原則」等3項規定，此外，配合機關組織調整實際需要，另發展出「經濟部水利署及內政部營建署城鄉發展分署之工程獎金支給模式」，共計4套支給規定。 鑒於「平等」、「正義」為世人論事用法之基本原則，亦係檢驗社會制度良善與否之首要價值，因此，公部門待遇之規劃與給與自應符合是項原則與價值體系，惟現行工程獎金制度存有4套支給規定，於適用對象、獎金發給種類、經費提撥方式等相關規定均有所差異，造成相同層級並從事相同工程業務者，卻支領不同額度之工程獎金，不僅引發各機關之質疑與批評，亦有違公平正義原則。 本研究採用文獻分析法及深度訪談法，以羅爾斯的正義論為立基及思考角度，檢視現行工程獎金制度之規劃與給與是否符合正義原則，並輔以嫻熟工程獎金制度實務運作之中央及地方機關之政策利害關係人，以及法制主管機關行政院人事行政總處之業管科長，進行深度訪談及綜合分析，進而分別從法制面及實務面提出研究發現與建議，以期提供政府檢討、評估與修正工程獎金制度缺失及規劃其他各項獎金制度之參考。 / The engineering bonus system for the administrative agencies in Taiwan started from 1970s, when the government was actively involved in the promotion of economic plans and the construction of major infrastructures. In order to encourage the government agencies to undertake various engineering projects, increasing efficiency at work and developing engineering techniques, the Executive Yuan issued relevant engineering bonus systems so that each government agency has a practical stipulation to abide by. Due to the temporal and spatial vicissitudes and the transformation of policies on government compensation, we have currently enforced three engineering bonus systems, including “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in each Construction Agency of Central Government”, “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in Central Government Agencies” and “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in local Government Agencies”. Moreover, in compatibility with the demand for the actual adjustment of government agencies, we also contrived the fourth engineering bonus system, “Modes of Engineering Bonus System for Water Resource Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs, and Urban and Rural Development Branch, Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior.” In light of equality and justice, considered not only the basic standards the public rely on while negotiating and dealing with matters but also the primary values to examine whether the social systems are conducive or not, thus, the planning of the government compensation should correspond to these standards and value systems. However, the current four engineering bonus systems vary in their targets, bonus types, and allotments, leading to a plight where there emerges to be a disparity of bonus pay among dealers at the same level engaging in the same engineering projects, which causes doubts and criticisms among government agencies, and violates the principles of equality and justice as well. Adopting citation analysis and depth interview and basing itself on John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, this research inspects whether the planning and implementation of the current engineering bonus system corresponds to justice principle. Moreover, it is also coupled with meta-analysis and in-depth interviews with policy stakeholders in local and central organizations who are familiar with the functioning of the engineering bonus system and the section chief of the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration. Then, research findings and suggestions will be proposed from a legal and practical perspectives in the hope of providing our government with the review, assessment and correction of drawbacks of the current engineering bonus systems and planning other bonus systems for reference.

This dissertation evaluates the recent academic consensus on liberal multiculturalism. I argue that this apparent consensus, by subsuming religious experience under the general category of culture, has rested upon undefended and contestable conceptions of modern religious life. In the liberal multicultural literature, cultures are primarily identified as sharing certain ethnic, linguistic, or geographic attributes, which is to say morally arbitrary particulars that can be defended without raising the possibility of conflict over metaphysical beliefs. In such theories, the possibility of conflict due to diverse religious principles or claims to the transcendent is either steadfastly ignored or, more typically, explained away as the expression of perverted religious faith. I argue that this conception of the relation between culture and religion fails to provide an account of liberal multiculturalism that is persuasive to religious believers on their own terms. To illustrate this failing, I begin with an examination of the Canadian policy of official multiculturalism and the constitutional design of Pierre Trudeau. I argue that the resistance of Québécois nationalists to liberal multiculturalism, as well as the conflict between the Québécois and minority religious groups within Quebec, has been animated by religious and quasi-religious claims to the transcendent. I maintain that to truly confront this basic problem of religious difference, one must articulate and defend the substantive visions of religious life that are implicit in liberal multicultural theory. To this end, I contrast the portrait of religious life and secularization that is implicit in Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of minority rights with the recent account of modern religious life presented by Charles Taylor. I conclude by suggesting that Kymlicka’s and Taylor’s contrasting conceptions of religious difference—which are fundamentally at odds regarding the relation of the right to the good, and the diversity and nature of genuine religious belief—underline the extent to which liberal multicultural theory has reached an academic consensus only by ignoring the reality of religious diversity. / text

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Ce mémoire traite de la critique communautarienne du libéralisme et se donne deux projets. D’abord, il s’agit de formuler une position de synthèse à partir des travaux des philosophes Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre et Michael Walzer. Cette synthèse s’articule autour de trois axes, soit ontologique, sociale et méthodologique. Le deuxième projet est d’évaluer cette position pour statuer sur son rapport au libéralisme, et, plus précisément, pour déterminer si elle est seulement une critique, une alternative, ou encore une variante à l’intérieur du libéralisme. Il est conclu que le communautarisme est réconciliable avec une certaine forme de libéralisme et que sa critique permet même de l’améliorer. / In this essay about the communitarian critique of liberalism I seek to reach two goals. First, it is to form a synthesis from the works of philosophers Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre and Michael Walzer. This synthesis is articulated through three axes: ontologicial, social and methodological. Building on this, my second objective is to assess its relation to liberalism. More specifically, I seek to determine whether communitarianism is merely a critique, an alternative or a variant of liberalism. My conclusion is that communitarianism is reconciliable with a certain form of liberalism and that its critique allows to improve it.

In this essay, I aim to elucidate a concept of public justification. I outline several challenges faced by political philosophers, including a desire to secure stability and treat people respectfully against a background of reasonable pluralism. I suggest that John Rawls‟ account of public reason provides a helpful starting point for accomplishing these goals. But critics have been both persistent and persuasive in their objections to public reason‟s central element of reasons all can accept. I explicate three dominant criticisms: incomprehensibility, attenuation and exclusion. First, some critics have argued that the very idea of reasons all can accept cannot be plausibly articulated. Second, critics maintain that the set of reasons all can accept is insufficiently robust to solve constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice. Third, critics note that if public justification is constrained by reasons all can accept, then many informative and effective arguments must be excluded from the public sphere. In response to these criticisms, I argue for an interpretation of reasons all can accept which is sensitive to critics‟ reasonable demand for an explicit account of each element of the doctrine. My interpretation demonstrates the superfluity of what I call the sharability constraint—the thesis that only reasons acceptable to all can function as justifications in the public sphere. Once the sharability constraint is rejected, I argue that the problem of exclusion dissipates, but that substantive restrictions on acceptable reasons are still possible. I am optimistic that this approach is less attenuating than one constrained by sharability and that, at least under favourable empirical conditions, more problems can be resolved by this approach than by standard Rawlsian theory. I draw on actual convergence in the international realm to bolster this optimism. Finally, I relate this approach to the widespread influence of deliberative democracy. I argue that procedural apparatuses are insufficient for political legitimacy, but that deliberation may be an invaluable tool for uncovering reasons required by substantive justification. / Graduate