This thesis aims at defending John Rawls from the communitarian critique by Michael Sandel and Alasdair Maclntyre. The main focus of the thesis is to investigate how cogent their criticism of Rawls's conception of the person is. In chapter one I summarise Rawls's theory of justice. I look at the two principles of justice and what they entail. These principles determine the rights of the citizens as well as how material goods in society should be distributed. He formulates what he calls 'justice as fairness'. Deeply embedded in establishing the notion of justice as fairness are two inseparable ideas. These are the idea of the original position and the idea of the veil of ignorance. The original position presents a thought experiment in which individuals are brought together to come up with an ideal society that they would want to live in. The ideas they have to discuss ultimately include individual rights and freedoms as well as how material goods are to be shared in that society. The individuals, however, are deprived of certain crucial information about how they would appear in the resulting society. This is what Rawls calls the veil of ignorance. The individuals do not know who or what they are going to be in their society. In other words, they do not know if they are going to be male or female, rich or poor, rulers or the oppressed or what their personality traits/character type or talents and disabilities will be. In chapter two I will look at the communitarian objection to Rawls's project. As a crucial part of his characterisation of the veil of ignorance and the original position he claims that these individuals do not know of their own conception of the good. This means that they are not aware of what they will choose as worthwhile and what they will consider to be a wasted life. Thus, these individuals, in considering principles that must govern them, that is principles of justice, will not discriminate between those who pursue a life of enlightenment and those who pursue a life of drugs and heavy parties. This has caused problems with communitarians who insist that one cannot be indifferent to what she considers to be worthwhile. They argue that an individual will defend what she considers to be worthwhile in the face of what she considers to be base, she will discriminate what is worthwhile from what is not worthwhile. Any interpretation that does not conform to this understanding is a distorted understanding of the nature of individuals. The work of communitarians is very broad. My main concentration is going to be on the work of Michael J. Sandel and Alasdair Mclntyre in so far as they argue that Rawls's project rests on a fundamentally mistaken view of the self. I have chosen Sandel and Mclntyre because their work is similar though expressed differently. They both argue that Rawls views the individual as preceding the existence of her society. They both claim that Rawls is committed to a certain metaphysical view of the self that leaves out the essence of community and values in the make up of individuals. In chapter three I argue that the objections by both Maclntyre and Sandel fail to apply to Rawls's project. I argue that their objections have strayed from metaphysics of the person. Sandel and Maclntyre claim that Rawls is committed to a certain metaphysical view of the self. Sandel calls it an "antecedently individuated self and Maclntyre calls it an "unencumbered emotivist self. Using the example of Derek Parfit and Bernard Williams I conclude that Sandel and Maclntyre are not discussing metaphysics of the person but have brought other issues that are at odds with our traditional understanding of the metaphysics of the self. In chapter four I conclude by considering the differences between my response to the communitarian critique and Rawls's response. Rawls explicitly denies that his theory is committed to any view of the person. He argues that justice as fairness is intended as a political conception of justice. He argues that justice as fairness is a moral conception that is meant for a specific subject. The subject he has in mind refers to the economic social and political institutions that make up society. Rawls chooses to explain what his theory entails and its limitations regarding metaphysics. I show how my response differs from Rawls's and argue that my response has got certain attractions over Rawls's own response. I end by looking at possible ways of furthering the debate. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2005.

This thesis explores the role of the concept of equality in John Rawls' theory of justice. Rawls argues that the Kantian idea of the moral equality of persons translates into a primary principle of equal basic liberties, followed by a principle of fair equality of opportunity that addresses the moral arbitrariness of social and natural contingencies. Furthermore, the "difference principle" specifies that social and economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the worst-off group. Libertarian critics such as Robert Nozick argue that Rawls' "difference principle" is inconsistent with a Kantian respect for the moral equality of persons as ends in themselves. Communitarians such as Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor argue that Rawls' egalitarian commitments are not supportable via a Kantian conception of the moral subject of justice as an autonomous pre-social self. This thesis defends Rawls' theory of justice against these challenges.

Este trabajo intenta caracterizar el tipo de discurso liberal desarrollado tanto en la obra del filósofo norteamericano John Rawls así como en el trabajo de Ronald Dworkin y Will Kymlicka. Esto, teniendo como centro de discusión las concepciones de individuo, comunidad y su relación, que subyacen a la teoría liberal; discusión articulada desde dos perspectivas: primero, a partir del contraste entre la Teoría de la Justicia de Rawls con los antecedentes que han configurado la matriz de la filosofía política liberal y segundo, a partir de la reconstrucción de las críticas realizadas por autores como Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, Alasdair MacIntyre y Michael Walzer que dieron origen al denominado debate-liberal comunitario. En este sentido, el primer capítulo pone en cuestión la consistencia del liberalismo como tradición concreta y son abordadas las obras de John Locke, Benjamín Constant, Alexis de Tocqueville, Immanuel Kant como ejes del pensamiento filosófico liberal. En el capítulo segundo, en base a estos elementos es reconstruida y contrastada la teoría de la justicia de Rawls, prestando central atención al argumento de la “posición original”. El capítulo tercero, caracteriza el debate liberal-comunitario; esto es, reconstruye las diversas críticas presentadas por los autores comunitarios desarticulando sus diferentes tópicos. Frente a lo cual, se articula un tipo de respuesta liberal desde la óptica del mismo Rawls, con su obra Liberalismo político, como de Dworkin y Kymlicka. Finalmente, el capítulo cuarto a modo de conclusión sugiere que si el liberalismo puede hacer frente al mayor número de críticas comunitarias resulta cuestionable si puede dar cabida a un pluralismo real, como es su pretensión, o sólo uno que se acomode al terreno por el demarcado, lo que trazaría sus límites políticos.

Este trabajo pretende realizar un recorrido brevemente concentrado en torno a la idea de sujeto liberal que es posible descubrir en la teoría rawlsiana de la justicia. Para ello se realizará primero una contextualización general en torno a la idea de la primacía de la justicia; luego, una descripción de la polémica siempre permanente entre liberales versus comunitaristas, y finalmente una descripción de los aspectos que configuran la posición original, contemplando tanto aspectos fundacionales en los que se hace presente la herencia del constructivismo y la moral kantiana, como también otras precisiones descriptivas que el mismo Rawls hace de su teoría. En una segunda parte se propone una relectura crítica de algunos aspectos que merecen la pena ser destacados nuevamente, ya sea por su importancia al interior de la teoría, ya sea por su carácter controvertido o susceptiblemente polémico. Finalmente, en la tercera parte se propondrá una lectura enfáticamente comunitaria, destacando los aspectos más importantes, que al parecer no estarían contemplados por Rawls al momento de establecer o suponer una cierta antropología filosófica que se desprendería en torno a las restricciones y descripciones de los sujetos idóneos para el “acuerdo” original y responsables a su vez, de escoger los principios de la justicia.

No description available.

The theme of this study is the power of women as evidenced in the novels of Andrée Maillet, particularly in one of her later novels, A la mémoire d'un héros. In order to establish the purpose of the author, it was imperative to define power as it is generally understood, as its meaning has evolved and as it is defined by the women specifically concerned with regaining their independence, in this case the feminists of America. During the analysis of the novel selected, it becomes evident that the study of power necessarily leads to the study of powerlessness in women and to the discovery of the roots of their surrender to the control of others. The research on patriarchy, the force that keeps women down, well documented by women writers such as Simone de Beauvoir, Carolyn Heilbrun, Lisa Hobbs and Caroline Bird sheds new light on Maillet's novel, which at first reading appears to be a simple romantic tale of a young woman studying abroad, meeting people of a different culture and falling in love. Maillet's novel goes much deeper, as she reveals the struggle of the heroine whose stern upbringing prevents her from adapting comfortably to the freedom of her new environment. The study of the three women who have tried to prepare their young charge for life helps understand why this heroine is at an impasse, why she eventually opts for a career rather than for love. In a subtle way, Maillet brings out the grief and hardships of women, their difficulty in dealing with relationships, with war and death, and with the acquisition of greater freedom, independence and power. In this slim volume, the author incorporates a portrait of the French-Canadian bourgeoisie; she sheds light on Quebec culture and introduces many well-known personalities of Quebec while punctuating her tale with intriguing symbols and myths of the world. The depth and originality of her writing, her style which has been widely admired, justify an in-depth analysis of this novel. The feminist angle in this analysis situates the author and her work in relation to other North American women writing in a similar context. / Arts, Faculty of / French, Hispanic, and Italian Studies, Department of / Graduate

The purpose of this thesis is to examine De Valera's objections in the light of his statements prior to the negotiations and of his proposals during the debate in the Dail.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.