This thesis investigates what work ought to be like. The answer it presents consists of an outline of a liberaltheory of justice in the employment contract based on theory developed in the area of political philosophy. Thethesis also examines issues of efficiency—How should measures to improve working conditions be evaluated?—and the ethical implications of the economic theory of employment contracts and the neoclassical theory of themarket. Paper I: A theoretical framework is introduced for the evaluation of workplace inspections with respect totheir effects on working conditions. The choice of a concept of efficiency is discussed, and its relation to criteriafor a good working environment is clarified. It is concluded that in order to obtain reliable information onthe effects of different inspection methods, it is necessary to perform controlled comparative studies in whichdifferent methods are used on different workplaces. Paper II: This article outlines the structure of a Rawlsian theory of justice in the employment relationship.The theory answers three questions about justice and the workplace. What is the relationship between socialjustice and justice at work? How should we conceive of the problem of justice within the economic sphere?And, what is justice in the workplace? Reasons for a specific construction of a local original position are givenand arguments are presented in support of a principle of local justice in the form of a choice egalitarian localdifference principle. Paper III: The political philosophy of John Rawls is applied to the moral dilemma of whistleblowing, andit is shown that that the requirement of loyalty, in the sense that is needed to create this dilemma, is inconsistentwith that theory. In a discussion and rejection of Richard De George’s criteria on permissible whistleblowing,it is pointed out that the mere rejection of loyalty will not lead to an extreme position; harms can still be takeninto account. Paper IV: The case is made that if contemporary economics of the employment contract is correct, thenin order to explain the existence of employment contracts, we must make the assumption that the contractingparties are attempting to deal with decisiontheoreticignorance. It follows that the course of action that theemployer chooses to take when acting from authority cannot be justified by consent, since the informednesscriterion of consent cannot be satisfied under ignorance. It is then suggested that in order to achieve justificationof acts of authority, there must be in place a real possibility to contest employers’ decisions. Paper V: According to Ronald Dworkin’s theory of equality of resources, mimicking the ideal market fromequal starting points is fair. According to Dworkin, the ideal market should be understood as described in GérardDebreu’s influential work, which implies that we should conceive of trade as taking place under certainty. Thereare no choices under risk in such a market. Therefore, there is no such thing as option luck in the ideal market.Consequently, when mimicking this market, we cannot hold people responsible for option luck. Mimicking thismarket also implies that we ought to set up a social safety net, since rational individuals with perfect foresightwould see to it that they always have sufficient resources at each point in life. Furthermore, the idea of insuranceis incompatible with the ideal market. / QC 20100728

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / O trabalho busca analisar os problemas envolvendo a efetivação do direito à saúde no Brasil, os conflitos alocativos subjacentes à temática e o papel das instituições representativas, do Judiciário e da sociedade civil neste processo. Pretende-se reafirmar a importância da proteção do direito à saúde e, ao mesmo tempo, criticar uma certa euforia doutrinária e jurisprudencial que se instalou nos últimos anos e passou a compreender o Judiciário como o último guardião das promessas constitucionais não cumpridas pelos ramos representativos. O trabalho analisa as experiências constitucionais de países que não apostam no dogma da supremacia judicial e tentam conciliar a revisão judicial com mecanismos mais democráticos. A partir daí propõe o marco teórico das teorias do diálogo institucional como uma alternativa menos unilateral para enfrentar os desafios desencadeados no campo sanitário. No trabalho enfatiza-se a importância pelas preocupações com a efetividade da constituição, mas propõe-se uma reflexão sobre qual seria a melhor alternativa para tanto, chegando-se à conclusão contra-intuitiva de que talvez o caminho mais eficaz passe por um controle judicial fraco, que não despreze as potencialidades do Direito, mas que aposte mais na democracia e na interação sinérgica entre os ramos representativos e a sociedade civil. / The work seeks to analyze problems involving the implementation of the right to health in Brazil, the distributive conflict underlying the theme and the role of representative institutions, the judiciary and civil society in this process. It is intended to reaffirm the importance of protecting the right to health and, at the same time, to criticize a certain euphoria that took place in recent years and came to understand the judiciary as the ultimate guardian of constitutional promises not kept by the representative branches. This article examines the constitutional experiences of countries that do not embrace the doctrine of judicial supremacy and struggle themselves to balance judicial review with more democratic mechanisms. Thereafter it is offered the theoretical framework of theories of institutional dialogue as a less one-sided alternative to meet the challenges triggered in the field of health care. The work emphasizes the importance by concerns about the effectiveness of the constitution, but it proposes a reflection on what would be the best alternative for it, coming to the counterintuitive conclusion that perhaps the most effective way is a weak from of judicial review, which do not disregard the potential of the Law, but that values more democracy and synergistic interaction between the branches and representative civil society.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / O trabalho busca analisar os problemas envolvendo a efetivação do direito à saúde no Brasil, os conflitos alocativos subjacentes à temática e o papel das instituições representativas, do Judiciário e da sociedade civil neste processo. Pretende-se reafirmar a importância da proteção do direito à saúde e, ao mesmo tempo, criticar uma certa euforia doutrinária e jurisprudencial que se instalou nos últimos anos e passou a compreender o Judiciário como o último guardião das promessas constitucionais não cumpridas pelos ramos representativos. O trabalho analisa as experiências constitucionais de países que não apostam no dogma da supremacia judicial e tentam conciliar a revisão judicial com mecanismos mais democráticos. A partir daí propõe o marco teórico das teorias do diálogo institucional como uma alternativa menos unilateral para enfrentar os desafios desencadeados no campo sanitário. No trabalho enfatiza-se a importância pelas preocupações com a efetividade da constituição, mas propõe-se uma reflexão sobre qual seria a melhor alternativa para tanto, chegando-se à conclusão contra-intuitiva de que talvez o caminho mais eficaz passe por um controle judicial fraco, que não despreze as potencialidades do Direito, mas que aposte mais na democracia e na interação sinérgica entre os ramos representativos e a sociedade civil. / The work seeks to analyze problems involving the implementation of the right to health in Brazil, the distributive conflict underlying the theme and the role of representative institutions, the judiciary and civil society in this process. It is intended to reaffirm the importance of protecting the right to health and, at the same time, to criticize a certain euphoria that took place in recent years and came to understand the judiciary as the ultimate guardian of constitutional promises not kept by the representative branches. This article examines the constitutional experiences of countries that do not embrace the doctrine of judicial supremacy and struggle themselves to balance judicial review with more democratic mechanisms. Thereafter it is offered the theoretical framework of theories of institutional dialogue as a less one-sided alternative to meet the challenges triggered in the field of health care. The work emphasizes the importance by concerns about the effectiveness of the constitution, but it proposes a reflection on what would be the best alternative for it, coming to the counterintuitive conclusion that perhaps the most effective way is a weak from of judicial review, which do not disregard the potential of the Law, but that values more democracy and synergistic interaction between the branches and representative civil society.

I uppsatsen presenterar jag “luck egalitarianism” och specifikt Dworkins teori om jämlika resurser. Målet med Dworkins teori är att sammanväva de två till synes motstridiga principerna om lika hänsyn och lika respekt. Dworkin försöker föra samman principerna genom att nå en fördelning som är ambitions-känslig samtidigt som den är talang-okänslig. Han försöker uppnå detta ideal genom att kombinera en fri marknad som visar lika respekt för medborgarnas valfrihet och ansvar, med en försäkringsmarknad som visar lika hänsyn till medborgarna genom möjligheten att teckna försäkring mot oförutsägbara konsekvenser under lika möjlighet och lika risk. Elizabeth S. Anderson påstår att Dworkins teori misslyckas i att kombinera principerna om lika hänsyn och lika respekt på ett rimligt sätt och presenterar två övergripande invändningar: hårdhetsinvändningen och förnedringsinvändningen. Den första invändningen (hårdhetsinvändingen) påstår att teorins ramverk för att fastslå vilka av de utsatta som har rätt till kompensation inte visar lika hänsyn till alla som är utsatta. Den andra invändningen (förnedringsinvändingen) påstår att grunderna för kompensation är förnedrande och inte visar lika respekt för alla medborgare. Målet med uppsatsen är att analysera Dworkins teori och undersöka om den vederläggs av Andersons invändningar. Den slutsats jag skall försvara är att så inte är fallet. Forskningsfrågan är följande: Påvisar Andersons invändningar att Dworkins teori om jämlika resurser inte visar lika hänsyn och respekt för alla medborgare?