This thesis is about the character of the non-cognitivist theory of ethics and its practical impact on contemporary moral and political life, It is suggested that non-cognitivism, understood as a distinct style of ethical theorising advanced most notably by Ayer, Stevenson, Hare and Mackie, has both a philosophical character, and an ideological character of a liberal-individualist kind. In the first four chapters the philosophical nature of the non-cognitivist account of ethics is critically examined. In chapters five and six it is argued, following Maclntyre, that there is a need to sketch out the historical context of the emergence of the theory in order to gain a complete understanding of its character. This is undertaken by drawing upon previously unpublished or unavailable material by such thinkers as Duncan-Jones, Barnes and Stevenson. In chapters seven and eight the ideological character of the theory is examined by indicating that philosophy and ideology constitute two logically different forms of understanding. It is suggested that the philosophical arguments advanced within non-cognitivism serve the purpose of giving coherent expression to a presumed ideological liberal-individualist conception of man and his relation to others in the world. Chapters nine and ten considers the implications for contemporary liberal theory of the non-cognitivist dominance of the moral philosophy and political practices of the Western democracies. It is claimed that the attempts of Dunn, Forty and Rawls to justify liberal theory and practice are unsuccessful because non-cognim has effectively undermined the distinction between morality and prudence upon which such a justification is grounded. The conclusion reached is that liberalism is in a state of crisis.

In this thesis I explore the possibility for a renewed communitarianism. Rather than present this as a rival to liberalism, however, I present it as a supplement. I start from the viewpoint that there are two basic facts with normative consequences the reconciliation of which is the central task of moral and political philosophy. One fact is the fact of individuality, which I believe produces a normative requirement that all and only obligations that respect a certain kind of individual autonomy are legitimate. This fact is well explained by liberalism, and so I am to that extent a liberal. Where I differ from contemporary liberalism, and where I think there is room for a renewed communitarianism, is in explaining the limits of autonomy. There are, I contend, a wide array of basic and legitimate obligations that cannot be adequately explained (i.e. the legitimacy of which cannot be explained) by autonomy alone. The role for communitarianism, then, is to explain the nature of a second legitimating principle and how these two principles – respect for autonomy and respect for (what I call) fraternity – can work together to explain when various maxims and policies are legitimate or illegitimate. In the first part I explain the importance of communitarianism. In the second, I try and determine the nature of the principle that should be seen as representing the normative requirements of the fact of sociality: the second inescapable fact of moral and political philosophy, that while we are individuals we are never alone. I will ultimately argue for a version of solidarity based on the role ethical obligations play in incorporating the interests of others in one‟s own set of interests. In the final part I explain how the ethical obligation at the heart of solidarity should work and then how to reconcile the normative requirements of the fact of sociality with autonomy.

La peine est une institution paradoxale des démocraties libérales contemporaines : les excès et les effets de sur-pénalisation qu’entraînent certaines politiques sécuritaires sont critiqués, mais l’impunité de certains crimes fait scandale et l’on appelle à ce que justice soit faite ; l’abolition de certaines peines (de prison par exemple) ou l’introduction de formes alternatives de régulation (telles les mesures de justice restaurative) sont revendiquées, mais l’on bute sur la difficulté à donner force au droit sans sanctions dissuasives. La présente thèse porte sur les raisons qui font passer l’institution pénale pour indépassable. Elle soutient qu’au-delà de son statut d’instrument afflictif ou de véhicule au ressentiment collectif, la justice pénale est investie d’un troisième rôle, que l’on propose de nommer la fonction normative de la peine. Cette fonction se manifeste à plusieurs égards : l’institution pénale affirme le caractère fondamental de certains interdits et participe à reconnaître les torts subis par les individus, parfois au rebours de la morale dominante ; elle contribue à déplacer les normes sociales et à distinguer les infractions qui importent à l’État et celles qui demeurent invisibles ; elle modèle le contenu et les formes de la conflictualité sociale en mettant en scène les demandes de justice face à l’autorité publique. L’examen de cette fonction normative et de ses répercussions sur la justification de la peine constitue les deux versants de ce travail. La première partie montre qu’au nom du rôle de reconnaissance des torts et des injustices dont l’institution pénale peut être investie, son emploi peut délibérément accroître la souffrance et l’exclusion sociale des condamnés. La deuxième partie cherche plus fondamentalement à comprendre si et comment l’État peut imposer des repères pratiques et des critères d’évaluation aux individus par la menace, malgré la généralité de la loi et le désaccord qui peut affecter les décisions des tribunaux. La troisième partie évalue les ambiguïtés de l’identification des condamnations à la reconnaissance d’un tort. Indexer la sévérité de la peine à la demande de la victime tout en tenant compte du châtiment mérité par le coupable revient à confier à la justice la tâche d’évaluer avec justesse les motifs des différends entre individus et groupes. Le problème est qu’elle le fait dans un cadre défini a priori par trois opérations : la qualification des infractions, l’imputation de la responsabilité et l’individualisation de la sentence. L’enquête conclut que la peine ne se réduit pas à un instrument auxiliaire de dissuasion ou de neutralisation. Elle contribue à trancher les conflits et à transformer la vie morale d’une société, ce qui explique en partie sa résistance face aux arguments de l’abolitionnisme ou de la justice restaurative. Elle demeure néanmoins une institution ambivalente, dont la justification est insatisfaisante : à la fois point d’appui à l’expression des demandes de justice, et, en raison de son caractère étatique, source de déception pour ces mêmes demandes. / Punishment is a paradoxical institution of contemporary democratic societies: the abuses and over-penalisation consequences of security policies are criticized, but the impunity of certain crimes remains scandalous and people urge for justice; the abolition of specific kinds of punishments (for instance prison) or the introduction of alternative forms of regulation (such as practices of restorative justice) are claimed, but the difficulty of enforcing law without deterrent sanctions seems inextricable. This dissertation deals with the reasons why such an institution as criminal justice is considered as unavoidable. It advocates that punishment assumes a third role in society, beyond its use as an afflictive instrument or as a vehicle for collective indignation. I call it the normative function of punishment. This function is manifested through various phenomena: penal institutions affirm the fundamental character of certain prohibitions and take part in recognizing wrongs suffered by individuals, even sometimes against the dominant morality; they help renew social norms and distinguish offenses that matter to the state from those that stay invisible; they shape the content and the forms of social conflictuality by raising demands for justice in front of the public authority. The study of this normative function and its consequences regarding the justification of punishment form the two sides of this dissertation. In the first part, I claim that in order to recognize wrongs and injustices, criminal justice can deliberately increase the social suffering and the exclusion of those who are punished. In the second part, I try to understand more fundamentally how penal institutions provide direct practical guides and evaluation criteria to individuals, despite the generality of legal norms and the disagreement that may affect courts’ decisions. In the third and final part, I assess the difficulty to identify criminal conviction with wrongs recognition. If the severity of sentences is indexed to the request of victims, and if judges still intend to limit deserved punishment to one’s culpability, criminal justice is entrusted with the task of accurately assessing the reasons of conflicts between individuals or groups. The problem is that it does so within a framework based (a priori) on three practices: the legal definition of offenses, the imputation of criminal responsibility and the individualization of sentence. This work concludes that punishment cannot be defined as a secondary instrument of deterrence or neutralization. Punishment contributes to resolve conflicts and transform societies’ moral life, which partly explains its resistance to claims of abolitionism or to restorative justice theory. However, criminal justice remains an ambivalent institution, of which justification is unsatisfactory: it is both a mean to express demands for justice and, as it remains in the hands of the state, a source of disappointment regarding these same demands.