Um dos principais problemas apresentados pela concepção tradicional de democracia, caracterizada pela mera competição política entre interesses ou preferências, é sua insuficiência na avaliação dos resultados políticos. Em contraposição, a idéia de uma democracia deliberativa pretende, dentre outros objetivos, fornecer uma reflexão epistêmica, na medida em que se propõe a ir além do mérito dos procedimentos democráticos, com vistas a apresentar boas razões para as escolhas públicas. Ela requer uma justificação pública que se faça por meio da argumentação pública de todos os concernidos. Essa abordagem, contudo, é comprometida por falhas relacionadas a sua postura excessivamente idealista caso entendamos os procedimentos deliberativos como discussões políticas efetivas voltadas para o consenso ou à eventual vagueza de seus parâmetros epistêmicos. Procuro defender, em sentido contrário, que critérios adequados à justificação pública podem ser encontrados na concepção política de justiça presente no liberalismo político de John Rawls. Sua proposta deve ser interpretada, em discordância com críticas correntes, como defensora da democracia e plenamente compatível com a deliberação democrática. / One of the major problems that beset the traditional conception of democracy, marked by a mere political contention of interests or preferences, is the absence of a due appraisal of political outcomes. Contrarily, the idea of deliberative democracy intends inter alia to provide an epistemic account so far as it goes beyond procedural values in order to find good reasons for a public choice. It claims a public justification by way of a public reasoning among all those concerned. This account reveals, however, shortcomings for being either too idealist if its deliberative procedures mean a public discussion whose aim is consensus or too vague whether one considers those procedures as epistemic standards. I sustain otherwise that appropriate criteria for public justification can be found in a political conception of justice supported by John Rawls political liberalism. This account is to be shown in opposition to common objections - as encouraging democracy and not inimical to democratic deliberation.

Um dos principais problemas apresentados pela concepção tradicional de democracia, caracterizada pela mera competição política entre interesses ou preferências, é sua insuficiência na avaliação dos resultados políticos. Em contraposição, a idéia de uma democracia deliberativa pretende, dentre outros objetivos, fornecer uma reflexão epistêmica, na medida em que se propõe a ir além do mérito dos procedimentos democráticos, com vistas a apresentar boas razões para as escolhas públicas. Ela requer uma justificação pública que se faça por meio da argumentação pública de todos os concernidos. Essa abordagem, contudo, é comprometida por falhas relacionadas a sua postura excessivamente idealista caso entendamos os procedimentos deliberativos como discussões políticas efetivas voltadas para o consenso ou à eventual vagueza de seus parâmetros epistêmicos. Procuro defender, em sentido contrário, que critérios adequados à justificação pública podem ser encontrados na concepção política de justiça presente no liberalismo político de John Rawls. Sua proposta deve ser interpretada, em discordância com críticas correntes, como defensora da democracia e plenamente compatível com a deliberação democrática. / One of the major problems that beset the traditional conception of democracy, marked by a mere political contention of interests or preferences, is the absence of a due appraisal of political outcomes. Contrarily, the idea of deliberative democracy intends inter alia to provide an epistemic account so far as it goes beyond procedural values in order to find good reasons for a public choice. It claims a public justification by way of a public reasoning among all those concerned. This account reveals, however, shortcomings for being either too idealist if its deliberative procedures mean a public discussion whose aim is consensus or too vague whether one considers those procedures as epistemic standards. I sustain otherwise that appropriate criteria for public justification can be found in a political conception of justice supported by John Rawls political liberalism. This account is to be shown in opposition to common objections - as encouraging democracy and not inimical to democratic deliberation.

[Truncated abstract] In this thesis, I seek to determine whether luck egalitarianism is a compelling interpretation of egalitarian justice. In answering this question, I challenge existing interpretations and criticisms of luck egalitarianism, and highlight its radical consequences. I propose a revised theory of luck egalitarianism, and conclude that it does represent a compelling interpretation of egalitarian justice. In the first chapter, I trace the evolution of luck egalitarianism, highlighting the variety of theories that have been grouped under this label. In chapter 2, I defend the approach against an influential critique by Elizabeth Anderson, who argues that luck egalitarianism is inherently disrespectful, trapped in the distributive paradigm, and harsh in its approach towards the victims of bad option luck. I argue against these criticisms, pointing out that the harsh treatment problem will rarely arise because few inequalities result entirely from option luck, and that luck egalitarianism is not disrespectful to those it seeks to assist, nor trapped in the distributive paradigm. In chapter 3, I analyse the distinction between option luck and brute luck, which is crucial to luck egalitarianism. I argue that the option-brute distinction is inconsistent with the underlying impulse of luck egalitarianism because it allows morally arbitrary inequalities to go uncorrected and because it is insufficiently sensitive to the impact of background inequalities on individual choice. I propose a revised theory of luck egalitarianism that focuses on the extent to which a person's level of advantage has been genuinely chosen, rejecting the option-brute distinction. In chapter 4, I give a broader justification of this theory, analysing recent critiques by Susan Hurley and Samuel Scheffler, who have both questioned the moral foundations of luck egalitarianism. In chapter 5, I outline a conception of egalitarian advantage to work alongside the revised theory of luck egalitarianism. I support Cohen's claim that egalitarians should adopt a heterogeneous account of advantage, which includes resources, welfare, and midfare. ... In chapter 7, I highlight the counter-intuitive social policy applications of luck egalitarianism, arguing that the universal approach to social provision associated with the social democratic welfare state comes closer to achieving luck-egalitarian objectives than the residual and conditional provision of benefits and services that is associated with the liberal welfare state. I conclude that luck egalitarianism, in the revised form I outline in chapter 3, is a compelling interpretation of egalitarian justice.