A tese trata do princípio da diferença na teoria da justiça de John Rawls, confrontando-o com a alegada raiz kantiana desta teoria, e sustentando que ambos – o princípio da diferença e a interpretação kantiana de Rawls – seriam incompatíveis, em razão do caráter conseqüencialista do princípio. Como resultado, nos escritos tardios de Rawls, o princípio da diferença passa a ocupar um espaço secundário na teoria da justiça, assim como a própria interpretação kantiana. / The thesis deals with the principle of difference in John Rawls’s theory of justice, facing it with the Kantian interpretation, and holds that both – the principle of difference and Rawls’s Kantian interpretation – are incompatible, due to the consequentialist character of the principle of difference. As a result, in Rawls’ later writings, the principle of difference abandoned, as well as the Kantian interpretation.

<p>An empirical study of how Malaysian pluralism is understood through Islam Hadhari, Article 11 and the Inter-faith Commission against the backdrop of current Malaysian political and social history, coupled with a theoretical analysis through John Rawls' Political Liberalism, with particular emphasis on the idea of Overlapping Consensus.</p><p>The thesis is an attempt at applying Rawls' theory on the practical case of Malaysia, as a plural society, while at the same time using the practical case of Malaysia to highlight parts of Rawls' own theory.</p>

An empirical study of how Malaysian pluralism is understood through Islam Hadhari, Article 11 and the Inter-faith Commission against the backdrop of current Malaysian political and social history, coupled with a theoretical analysis through John Rawls' Political Liberalism, with particular emphasis on the idea of Overlapping Consensus. The thesis is an attempt at applying Rawls' theory on the practical case of Malaysia, as a plural society, while at the same time using the practical case of Malaysia to highlight parts of Rawls' own theory.

The liberal tradition has borne great fruits since the dawn of the modern era by emphasizing the value of equality and personal liberty, and by developing a theory of rights. Despite its incredible success, many authors have been pointing to fissures in the liberal structure, including practical and theoretical problems with state neutrality, with the state’s stance vis-à-vis different cultures, and with liberalism’s purported radical individualism. It is my belief that the gains of liberalism can be reconciled within a new theory that better answers to such critiques. Citizenship Beyond Liberal Neutrality begins with an analysis of contemporary debate between liberalism and its critics. This leads to a discussion of the state’s relationship toward cultural identities, and to a discussion of the meaning of citizenship within a liberal-democratic state. What we need, I argue, is a civic identity that is both capable of judging cultural practices, and capacious enough for a citizenry characterized by reasonable pluralism. This common identity, moreover, provides a locus for attachment that is often found wanting in contemporary liberal theory. I draw on relevant insights from virtue theories, constitutional patriotism, and an ‘analogical’ understanding of public reason to inform a new, liberal-like conception of citizenship. In order to exemplify this conception, and to bolster the case for it, I consider how such a philosophy could play out with respect to two public policy areas that are central to citizenship, namely education and immigration. Distilled to its simplest, I argue for a theory of citizenship that admits a conception of the good, that can promote virtue while respecting autonomy, and that can provide a basis for civic unity.

Ce mémoire explore la question des conséquences de l’interprétation rawlsienne du pluralisme éthique pour la légitimité de l’autonomie individuelle comme objectif d’éducation publique. Rawls (1993, 2003) soutient que seuls des objectifs éducatifs strictement politiques peuvent guider l’élaboration des politiques publiques en matière d’éducation obligatoire et justifier une intervention étatique dans l’éducation des enfants. Or, puisque Rawls définit l’autonomie individuelle comme un idéal éthique privé, il conclut qu’elle n’est pas un objectif légitime d’éducation publique. La thèse principale qui est défendue dans le cadre de ce mémoire est que Rawls est aveugle aux implications réelles de sa propre théorie politique en matière d’éducation commune, qui, contrairement à ce qu’il soutient, exigent précisément la promotion de l’autonomie individuelle comme idéal éthique (et non politique). Cette thèse remet en question le principe de neutralité de l’État envers toutes les doctrines éthiques, y compris l’idéal d’autonomie individuelle, qui caractérise et distingue la théorie rawlsienne des versions classiques du libéralisme. La deuxième partie de cette étude considère une stratégie possible pour sauver la neutralité du libéralisme politique, qui consiste à définir le concept d’autonomie individuelle de manière procédurale et éthiquement neutre. Ce chapitre montre que, indépendamment de la plausibilité strictement conceptuelle d’une telle caractérisation de l’autonomie individuelle, elle n’est pas appropriée au projet éducatif rawlsien, parce que celui-ci demande la valorisation de la pensée critique, et comporte donc un élément éthique incontournable. Enfin, la troisième partie de cette étude explore la problématique des moyens de promotion de l’autonomie individuelle et, plus spécifiquement, de la légitimité des écoles séparées religieuses. Elle soutient, d’un côté que l’école religieuse peut avoir une importante valeur instrumentale vis-à-vis du développement de l’autonomie individuelle, mais de l’autre côté, que l’école commune est nécessaire à un certain stade de développement. / This study explores the consequences of the rawlsian interpretation of ethical pluralism for the legitimacy of individual autonomy as a goal of public educational policies. Rawls (1993, 2003) affirms that the only educational goals that can legitimately justify public policies and the state’s intervention in children’s education are strictly political goals. Now, Rawls defines personal autonomy as a private ethical ideal. Therefore, he concludes that personal autonomy is not a legitimate goal of public education. The main thesis defended in this study is that Rawls fails to realize the implications of his own political theory for educational policies. His ideal of citizenship demands in fact a public promotion of individual autonomy. One effect of this thesis is to challenge the principle of the state’s neutrality towards all ethical doctrines, which characterizes and distinguishes Rawls’ theory from the classical versions of liberalism. The second part of the study considers an alternative strategy that aims at defending the principle of neutrality by redefining the very concept of personal autonomy in procedural and non-ethical terms. However, this study shows that, independently of its conceptual plausibility, a purely procedural notion of personal autonomy is not appropriate in the context of the rawlsian educational project. Rawls’ political theory demands in fact the valorization of the practice of autonomy and involves thereby an unavoidable ethical partiality for certain ways of life. Finally, the third part of this study explores the normative debate about the means needed for the promotion of personal autonomy in public education. More specifically, it focuses on the question of the legitimacy of religious schools. It argues, on the one hand, that religious schools can play an important instrumental role for the development of personal autonomy, but that, on the other hand, common schooling is, at the certain stage, necessary for a full development of children’s personal autonomy within a pluralistic society.

The liberal tradition has borne great fruits since the dawn of the modern era by emphasizing the value of equality and personal liberty, and by developing a theory of rights. Despite its incredible success, many authors have been pointing to fissures in the liberal structure, including practical and theoretical problems with state neutrality, with the state’s stance vis-à-vis different cultures, and with liberalism’s purported radical individualism. It is my belief that the gains of liberalism can be reconciled within a new theory that better answers to such critiques. Citizenship Beyond Liberal Neutrality begins with an analysis of contemporary debate between liberalism and its critics. This leads to a discussion of the state’s relationship toward cultural identities, and to a discussion of the meaning of citizenship within a liberal-democratic state. What we need, I argue, is a civic identity that is both capable of judging cultural practices, and capacious enough for a citizenry characterized by reasonable pluralism. This common identity, moreover, provides a locus for attachment that is often found wanting in contemporary liberal theory. I draw on relevant insights from virtue theories, constitutional patriotism, and an ‘analogical’ understanding of public reason to inform a new, liberal-like conception of citizenship. In order to exemplify this conception, and to bolster the case for it, I consider how such a philosophy could play out with respect to two public policy areas that are central to citizenship, namely education and immigration. Distilled to its simplest, I argue for a theory of citizenship that admits a conception of the good, that can promote virtue while respecting autonomy, and that can provide a basis for civic unity.

Thesis (M.A.)--Indiana University, 2008. / Includes vitae. Department of Philosophy, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) Advisor(s): Peter H. Schwartz. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 61-66)

A tese trata do princípio da diferença na teoria da justiça de John Rawls, confrontando-o com a alegada raiz kantiana desta teoria, e sustentando que ambos – o princípio da diferença e a interpretação kantiana de Rawls – seriam incompatíveis, em razão do caráter conseqüencialista do princípio. Como resultado, nos escritos tardios de Rawls, o princípio da diferença passa a ocupar um espaço secundário na teoria da justiça, assim como a própria interpretação kantiana. / The thesis deals with the principle of difference in John Rawls’s theory of justice, facing it with the Kantian interpretation, and holds that both – the principle of difference and Rawls’s Kantian interpretation – are incompatible, due to the consequentialist character of the principle of difference. As a result, in Rawls’ later writings, the principle of difference abandoned, as well as the Kantian interpretation.

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.

A tese trata do princípio da diferença na teoria da justiça de John Rawls, confrontando-o com a alegada raiz kantiana desta teoria, e sustentando que ambos – o princípio da diferença e a interpretação kantiana de Rawls – seriam incompatíveis, em razão do caráter conseqüencialista do princípio. Como resultado, nos escritos tardios de Rawls, o princípio da diferença passa a ocupar um espaço secundário na teoria da justiça, assim como a própria interpretação kantiana. / The thesis deals with the principle of difference in John Rawls’s theory of justice, facing it with the Kantian interpretation, and holds that both – the principle of difference and Rawls’s Kantian interpretation – are incompatible, due to the consequentialist character of the principle of difference. As a result, in Rawls’ later writings, the principle of difference abandoned, as well as the Kantian interpretation.