The purpose of this thesis is to explore contemporary communitarian thinker Michael J. Sandel¡¦s political philosophy concerning one that realizes the importance of ¡§virtue¡¨ and ¡§ends¡¨ in citizenship and the state. I argue that although Sandel is often known as one of the most compelling critics of John Rawls¡¦ justice theory, his more ambitious commitment since 1984 is to provide a vision about the nature and aim of political life through insights of civic republicanism. The goal of this essay is to sort out Sandel¡¦s perspectives on these normative statements. Introducing from the debates between justice and the good in ethics, I explain what motivates me to write this essay and briefly describe the framework and approach of the thesis. In the second chapter, I elaborate Sandel¡¦s philosophical anthropology. Different from Rawls¡¦ the conception of human, Sandel¡¦s version is one with moral disposition¡X¡Xthat is to say, at the moment when we ask ourselves ¡§ who am I¡H¡¨, it comes to the answer that we are constitutive beings, rather than unencumbered selves from nowhere. Only when an agent is capable of self-reflection and recognizing how self is situated can self-knowledge and political practices possible. In short, only in a political community can spirit of citizenship be realized. In chapter three, I trace Sandel¡¦s argument and point out the fact that the theory and practice of contemporary liberalism has practically become a synonym to procedural republic. It is presented not only the ideas of ¡§rights as trumps¡¨ and neutral state, but also revealed by the erosion of community and the loss of self-government. Therefore, how to rebuild moral life in modern democratic practices has become an important task for people of our time. Following the political tradition of republicanism in American history, Sandelian republicanism, inherence of Aristotlian perfectionism, stresses the importance of political community as a whole to cultivate civic virtue. So I discuss the meaning of freedom/liberty and self-government. Through above discussions, I try to reveal Sandel¡¦s idea of democracy that insists conserving certain conceptions of the good, common ends and substantial moral contents in political life. In chapter four, I deal with how Sandel respond to the tension between republicanism and liberalism. From communitarianism to republicanism, I am persuaded that the core of Sandel¡¦s philosophy lies in the idea of citizenship and the ends of state. Civic virtues are so intrinsic to political life and will help to lead us to a good life. State or government shouldn¡¦t just be neutral but should play a role in developing good citizens. In final chapter, I concluded that Sandel¡¦s concerns to community and citizen and his republican ideals revive an yet long forgotten tradition in democratic thoughts.

Submitted by PPG Filosofia (filosofia-pg@pucrs.br) on 2018-05-21T13:43:38Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TES_JADERSON BORGES LESSA.pdf: 1883533 bytes, checksum: e3484db9f132bfc3c19567541b5d676a (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sheila Dias (sheila.dias@pucrs.br) on 2018-06-01T13:26:37Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 TES_JADERSON BORGES LESSA.pdf: 1883533 bytes, checksum: e3484db9f132bfc3c19567541b5d676a (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-06-01T13:32:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TES_JADERSON BORGES LESSA.pdf: 1883533 bytes, checksum: e3484db9f132bfc3c19567541b5d676a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-16 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / The aims of this research on the criticism of Michael Sandel to John Rawls it is to investigate the possibility to carry out another solution the problem of the priority of the right over the good, about the limits of the theory of justice and of political liberalism. This aims signals an attempt to solve a problem internal justice as fairness but became the target of external critics, who saw in this situation their practical and conceptual limits. Even acknowledging external criticism, the proposed solution to the limits presented involves an internal response. The proposal includes: ?) the displacement of the problem of priority to the problem of congruence; ?) the affirmation of the relevance of conceptions of good, both from the moral and political point of view, of a conception of justice; ?) the recognition that a rejection of a vision of good could weaken political institutions. The implication of this perspective is that any absolute understanding of these perspectives is undone if emphasized the elements of justice and good in the perspective of congruence. Given these objectives and proposals, the research plan is based on the state of how this question is found in the work of Rawls, either in terms of priority or of congruence. Then are the critical considerations that Sandel presents as limits to the realization of that theory of justice and that form of political liberalism. Namely, that justice cannot be primary and that political liberalism leads to a loss of the politics of good (common, public). The result is a "procedural republic". The last part is to demonstrate that the problem of congruence ? that of showing the possibility of a theory of justice finding a place within the conceptions of good ? it is not rejected by liberalism. This idea reinforces the possibility of Rawls's theory goes beyond the limits indicated by Sandel. / O objetivo desta pesquisa sobre a cr?tica de Michael Sandel a John Rawls ? investigar a possibilidade de se efetivar outra solu??o, para os limites da teoria da justi?a e do liberalismo pol?tico, ao problema da prioridade do justo sobre o bem. Esse objetivo sinaliza uma tentativa de resolu??o de um problema, interno a justi?a como equidade, mas que se tornou alvo dos cr?ticos externos, que viram nessa situa??o os seus limites, pr?ticos e conceituais. Mesmo a cr?tica externa sendo reconhecida, a proposta de solu??o para os limites apresentados abrange uma resposta interna, que envolve: ?) uma guinada do problema da prioridade para o problema da congru?ncia; ?) a afirma??o da relev?ncia das concep??es de bem, tanto para o ponto de vista moral, quanto pol?tico, de uma concep??o de justi?a; e, ?) o reconhecimento de que uma rejei??o de uma vis?o de bem poderia enfraquecer as institui??es pol?ticas. A implica??o desse ponto de vista ? que, enfatizados os elementos da justi?a e do bem na perspectiva da congru?ncia, desfaz-se qualquer compreens?o absoluta destes aspectos. ? luz desses objetivos e propostas, o plano de investiga??o ? realizado ao se partir do estado de como essa quest?o encontrase na obra de Rawls, seja no que se refere ? prioridade, seja no que se refere ? congru?ncia. Em seguida, encontram-se as considera??es cr?ticas que Sandel apresenta como limites para a realiza??o daquela teoria da justi?a e daquela forma de liberalismo pol?tico, a saber, que a justi?a n?o pode ser prim?ria e que o liberalismo pol?tico conduz a uma perda da pol?tica do bem (comum, p?blico). O resultado ? uma ?rep?blica procedimental?. A ?ltima parte consiste em demonstrar que o problema da congru?ncia ? aquele de mostrar a possibilidade de uma teoria da justi?a encontrar lugar dentro das concep??es de bem ? n?o ? rejeitado pelo liberalismo, refor?ando, assim, a possibilidade da teoria de Rawls ir al?m dos limites apontados por Sandel.

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.

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

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.

民主原則之規範性困境，今日已於所有民主國家的政治生活中，展現為層出不窮的民主危機。尤其因為民粹威權主義於成熟民主國家的大行其道，民主危機的解決已成為當代民主迫在眉睫的問題。為求取釜底抽薪的解決之道，則必須從理論層面出發，對民主之概念進行徹底的反省。然而，法學本身顯然難以克服此一困境，而必須將道德哲學與政治哲學的理論資源與方法納入視野之內，以便從規範性證立民主的基本內涵開始，循序漸進地獲致其反映於制度層面應有的具體內容。 　　過往的民主理論證立民主之所以具有無法克服的困難，是因為其終須依賴當代多元社會下有爭議的道德信念。對此，本文以Jürgen Habermas的「論辯倫理學」為基礎，從而對民主的基本精神提出無爭議的規範性證立。透過論辯倫理學的進一步推演，Habermas亦導出「法律論辯理論」，以說明法律作為施展強制力的工具是如何被證立的。藉由結合論辯倫理學與法律論辯理論，便能將民主強制付諸於日常生活的實踐之中，據此呈現出民主作為憲法原則的應有樣貌。植基於此一的路徑，本文拓展了Habermas的理念，從而證立並闡發民主的核心精神。 　　此一依循論辯倫理學及法律論辯理論所獲致的民主原則內容，即為審議民主理論。依據前述的理論奠基，本文認為審議民主理論蘊含的內容可歸結為「論辯之基本權」以及「政治平等諸規則」兩大理念，並能透過基進民主理論的批判以深化對後者的理解，從而闡發審議民主理論的基進意涵。「基進審議民主」明確而豐富的內容不僅宣告著民主原則規範性困境之解決，也同時於實踐上提出了化解民主危機的制度建議。 / In the political life of all democracies, the normative dilemma of principle of democracy has appeared as endless crises of democracy. Accrodingly, to solve the crisis of democracy thus becomes an urgent issue for the contemporary democracy. As populist authoritarianism propagated on a upsetting scale around developed democracies, finding a resolution also grows more significant. To solve this problems once and for all, we must proceed forward from a theoretical perspective that indicate a profound reflection on the concept of democracy. Because jurisprudence becomes manifest in lack of proper paths to overcome this dilemma by itself, incorporating the theoretical resources and methods of ethics and political philosophy into the field of vision may be imperative and necessary. With the foundation that justifies fundamental connotations of democracy in a normative approch, we will obtain the specific contents that democracy reflects at the institutional level progressively. 　　Previous works on democratic theory are so difficult to justify democracy per se because their justifications depending on controversial moral beliefs in contemporary plural society drift into failure. In this regard, Jürgen Habermas advanced the “Discourse Ethics” which suggests a non-controversial normative justification of democratic essences as the most promising theory at present. Through employing Discourse Ethics, Habermas deduced “Discourse Theory of Law” to explain how to justify law as a compulsory instrument. In this manner, democracy can be forced into daily life, via combining Discourse Ethics and Discourse Theory of Law, to draw a ideal form as a a constitutional principle. Through the illustration of Habermas's doctrine, this thesis tries to broaden the ways to understand and describe the democracy. 　　“Deliberative Democracy” is the very idea derived from Discourse Ethics and Discourse Theory of Law. Based on the foundations of the above, this thesis suggests that the contents of Deliberative Democracy can be attributed to the two basic concepts including “fundamental rights of discourse” and “rules of political equality”, which, through criticisms of radical democracy, shall be further deepen the understanding of the latter to elucidate what radical meanings do Deliberative Democracy have. With specific and profuse contents, radical deliberative democracy not only invents a solution to the normative dilemma of principle of democracy, but puts forward institutional proposals to resolving crises of democracy in practice simultaneously.