The present essay has the goal to investigate the right to punish and the punishment on the political thought of Thomas Hobbes, with the purpose to verify which is the essence of the right to punish, its legitimacy and its limits, as well as inquiring which function the punishment exerts in the State, if juridical, political, or both. For this reason, the first chapter begins with the investigation of the constituting elements of the thought of Hobbes, analyzing how the rationalism, the materialism, the nominalism, the mechanicism and the Hobbesianian naturalism influence the definition of the referring concepts to the State and in the structure of its political theory. Based on these concepts, it is verified how the disruption of Hobbesianian thought happens with the philosophical and the scholastic tradition, mainly with the Aristotelian vision of human nature. After that, the factors that lead the institution of the Civil State, especially, the state of nature and the social pact are analyzed and its characteristic elements are distinguished. The second chapter has as a target to clarify the concepts of the rights of nature, law of nature and civil law, verifying in which way these elements relate to the State and the sovereign power, as well as its importance. Therefore, it is verified the concept of Jusnaturalism and the legal positivism in Hobbes and how laws of nature consist on the rational basis for the institution of the Civil State. On the third chapter, the right to punish is examined in the Civil State, its origin, limits, purpose and if this element is part of the sovereignty. Moreover, it is examined the connection between law, crime and sin in Hobbes and which is the influence of these concepts on the political obedience and the freedom of the subjects. Finally, it is verified how the punishment will consist in a political controlling instrument on the sovereign power. / A presente dissertação tem por objetivo investigar o direito de punir e a punição no pensamento político de Thomas Hobbes, com a finalidade de verificar qual a essência do direito de punir, sua legitimidade e limites, bem como averiguar qual a função que a punição exerce no Estado, se jurídica, política, ou ambas. Para tanto, o primeiro capítulo inicia-se com a investigação dos elementos constituintes do pensamento de Hobbes, analisando como o racionalismo, o materialismo, o nominalismo, o mecanicismo e o naturalismo hobbesiano influenciam na definição dos conceitos referentes ao Estado e na estruturação de sua teoria política. Partindo desses conceitos, verifica-se como se dá o rompimento do pensamento hobbesiano com a tradição filosófica e a escolástica, principalmente com a visão aristotélica de natureza humana. Em seguida, os fatores que conduzem a instituição do Estado Civil, especialmente o estado de natureza e o pacto social, são analisados e distinguidos seus elementos característicos. No segundo capítulo, busca-se esclarecer os conceitos de direito de natureza, de lei de natureza e de lei civil, verificando como esses elementos relacionam-se com o Estado e o poder soberano, bem como sua importância. Outrossim, verifica-se em que consiste o jusnaturalismo e o positivismo jurídico em Hobbes e como as leis de natureza constituem-se na base racional para a instituição do Estado Civil. No terceiro capítulo, examina-se o direito de punir no Estado Civil, sua origem, limites, finalidade e se este é elemento integrante da soberania. Além disso, examina-se a conexão entre lei, crime e pecado em Hobbes e qual a influência desses conceitos na obediência política e na liberdade dos súditos. Por fim, verifica-se como a punição se constituirá em instrumento de controle político pelo poder soberano.

In this study, the manipulations of history and language in the dystopias of &ldquo / Nineteen Eighty-Four&rdquo / by George Orwell, &ldquo / We&rdquo / by Yevgeni Zamyatin and &ldquo / Brave New World&rdquo / by Aldous Huxley are examined. The principal aim of this investigation is to demonstrate that in these imaginary societies absolute stability is achieved through the manipulations of these two domains. The thesis argues that if the domains of history and language are not taken under control, they are to provide the subjects with the standard of comparisons which would enable them to realize that they are in fact dominated. However, once these domains are manipulated, they are transformed into the means of the dystopian rulers for mentally impoverishing people in a way that they would not be capable of conceiving the flaws within the system and therefore, would not attempt to challenge the order or require a change. In this sense, it is proposed that the subjects of these closed societies, who are formed as a result of the reshaping of history and language, would lack the mental capabilities to identify their subjection and behave automatically in the manner that is imposed on them by the political order. Moreover, in this study, the relationship of the genre dystopia with political theory is explored / it is indicated that dystopias are not only literary works, but rather they are also texts of social criticism containing certain warnings about the future course of events. Relying on this argument, it is claimed that such an invasion of the minds by the control over history and language in our three dystopias is the exaggerated version of the ideological relationships of the individuals to these two realms in the contemporary societies. Thus, having in mind that in the dystopias examined here the manipulations of history and language are the preconditions of the use of other realms (such as religion, sexuality and science), it is concluded that these texts enable modern individuals to see that in order to maintain a critical distance with the established political and social order, the multiplicity of linguistic resources and knowledge of history are very crucial.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T20:12:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 3051.pdf: 1992978 bytes, checksum: fb8b38e65171ce45ef572425d1cb2105 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-11-29 / This thesis analyzes and discusses the ideas of passion, reason, consenting, promise, and political obedience aiming to verify how they can found on a defense of morals and politics in David Hume s philosophy. From the rational view, Hobbes and Locke postulate that the institution and legitimating of political associations or of the State stem from people s liberty and interest in giving in to the other s power; from the making of agreements or deals related to the association or submission; and from the explicit promise of adhesion and obedience to the established government. From the human behavior observation and historical perspectives, Hume states that government s origin and legitimating don t rely on contracts and explicit promises of submission since political societies established through usurpation and conquering demand the same obedience and submission from people as other states do. Such a debate with contractualists reveals three problems in Hume s political philosophy: the passive and tacit character of political obedience to the usurped and conquered governs; the compatibility between the idea of spontaneity liberty or free action and the submission imposed by governments established through strength and violence; and the existence and operation of political and moral agents able to determine themselves in circumstances of social and political restraint. As a hypothesis of solution for such problems, one considers that morals and politics in Hume s philosophy can be established by taking human nature principles as the creative principle of all institutions and sciences. Therefore, one needs to verify the role reason and passions play in the determination of human behavior and constitution of the State; to distinguish the debate on the government origin from the debate on its legitimacy, so that to analyze the psychological principles which make people to accept being governed; to examine the general promise foundations, so that to note the motivations for the agreements fulfillment; and to investigate the obedience and legitimating principles in political societies. / Esta tese analisa e discute as idéias de paixão, razão, consentimento, promessa e obediência política, para verificar como podem fundamentar a defesa de uma teoria da agência moral e política na filosofia de David Hume. Do ponto de vista racional, Hobbes e Locke postulam que a instituição e legitimação de associações políticas ou do Estado derivam: da liberdade e do interesse dos indivíduos em se submeterem ao poder alheio; do estabelecimento de acordos ou contratos relativos à associação e submissão; e da promessa expressa de adesão e obediência ao governo estabelecido. Na perspectiva da observação do comportamento humano e da história, Hume concebe que a origem e legitimidade do governo não dependem de contratos e promessas expressas de submissão, pois as sociedades políticas fundadas mediante usurpação e conquista exigem das pessoas a mesma obediência e submissão que os outros Estados. Esse debate com os contratualistas deixa entrever três problemas na filosofia política de Hume: o caráter passivo ou tácito da obediência política aos governos usurpados e conquistados; a compatibilidade entre a idéia de liberdade de espontaneidade ou ação livre e a submissão imposta pelos governos estabelecidos pela força e violência; e a existência e atuação de agentes morais e políticos capazes de se determinarem nas circunstâncias de constrangimento social e político. Como hipótese de solução desses problemas, considera-se que a agência moral e política na filosofia de Hume pode se estabelecer com base na análise dos princípios da natureza humana como princípio criativo de todas as instituições e ciências. Assim, é preciso: verificar o papel da razão e das paixões na determinação do comportamento humano e na constituição do Estado; distinguir o debate acerca da origem do governo da discussão sobre sua legitimidade, analisando-se os princípios mentais que permitem as pessoas consentirem ser governadas; examinar os fundamentos da promessa em geral, observando-se as motivações para o cumprimento de acordos; e investigar os princípios da obediência política e legitimação das sociedades políticas.