501 |
Filosofia e direito: a filosofia da consciência e o fenômeno jurídicoTraesel, Clório Erasmo 26 October 2011 (has links)
Submitted by Nara Lays Domingues Viana Oliveira (naradv) on 2015-08-29T14:56:24Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
clorio.pdf: 1569404 bytes, checksum: 1d447767db6e54e17d83dc952781b7af (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-08-29T14:56:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
clorio.pdf: 1569404 bytes, checksum: 1d447767db6e54e17d83dc952781b7af (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2011 / Nenhuma / A História proporciona, em certa medida, um relato da sociedade na qual se está envolvido no presente. É naquela que está a possibilidade de respostas a certas inquietações, sem que tais respostas transbordem da sua condição de respostas para a de soluções. Mas olhar a História é, com efeito, olhar a tessitura e os vários “textos” que a formam. Os vários “eventos” devem ser considerados nesse contexto. No correr da História, no tempo e no espaço do Ocidente, ela sempre foi vista como uma sucessão de etapas, etapas vistas como mudanças que, por sua vez, decorriam de escolhas e supressões. O posterior, se não moralmente, ideologicamente superior ao anterior. Para essa narrativa ser possível, mister uma estrutura conceitual filosófica que representasse e justificasse os valores envolvidos nas escolhas: a Filosofia. A partir da filosofia grega, constitui-se um esteio justificador que permeou todas as demais instituições, especialmente o Estado e o Direito. Efetivamente as escolha são feitas; o que predomina, porém, jamais se demite da sua experiência anterior, pois não há rigorosamente nada de originário. O evento, seja o Estado, seja o Direito, sempre está vinculado ao contexto. Um contexto de ações, atitudes, de cultura, em um sentido amplo, envolvendo todos os comportamentos, modos de pensar e agir do homem; envolvendo o ethos; isso é o originário. Na dinamização da cultura é que se pode observar o valor das ações. O valor atribuído a elas é o critério usado para se proceder às escolhas e configura, portanto, o núcleo ético-mítico no espaço e no tempo da civilização ocidental. Se desde sempre se está em um mundo de escolhas, desde sempre se está num mundo prático. A Filosofia no entanto, transformada em metafísica, esconde essa questão originária da escolha, ao cindir a razão e subordinando a razão prática à razão teórica, na medida em que esta fornece os elementos estruturais necessários (transcendentes) para a formulação dos juízos. Cindir a razão é uma escolha, vinculada a um modo de agir, a uma atitude, a um ethos. Isso está repercutido na forma como a História é considerada (etapas sucessivas e superiores) e na fundamentação filosófica do Estado e do Direito. O exemplo da Modernidade é eloquente, pois, a pretexto de superar o Medievo, recupera materiais da Antiguidade clássica, sem dar-se conta, no entanto, que o Medievo sequer rompera com a Antiguidade. Assim, é possível olhar a História não na linearidade da sucessão de fases e períodos, mas como um desdobramento cultural em espaço definido. Esse ponto de vista permite identificar nas manifestações políticas (Estado) e jurídicas (Direito) a natureza das escolhas a partir da fundamentação filosófica. Estado e Direito, em que pese serem conquistas (no sentido positivo) da civilização ocidental, conservam a originariedade do ethos civilizatório. O desvelamento é possível a partir da filosofia hermenêutica ou da hermenêutica filosófica. Retirar o véu encobridor das relações, não apenas revela os tantos problemas sociais, deixa implícita uma contradição: mantém-se um discurso que substitui a realidade (o uno) pela aparência (a igualdade entre o uno e outro) e a verdade, com efeito, é entregue à retórica, ao argumento. A hermenêutica filosófica não é normativa, mas apenas por meio dela é que se pode dizer que desde sempre se está na razão prática, desde sempre se faz escolhas, na História e na Linguagem. / History provides, to a certain extent, a report of the society in which it is involved at the present. It is in that which is the possibility of responses to certain concerns, without which such answers exceeds its condition of answers to solutions. But looking at History is, in fact, look at the structure and the various "texts" that forms it. The various "events" should be considered in this context. In the course of History, time and space in the West, it has always been seen as a succession of steps, steps seen as changes which, in its turn, resulted from choices and omissions.The latter, if not morally, ideologically superior to the former. To be possible this narrative, it is necessary a philosophical conceptual framework that could represent and justify the values involved in the choices: Philosophy. From the Greek philosophy, is a mainstay justifier that permeated all the other institutions, especially the State and the Law. Effectively the choices are made; what predominates, however, never resigns from his previous experience, because there is absolutely nothing of originating. The event, being it the State, being it the Law, is always linked to the context. A context of actions, attitudes, culture, in a wide sense involving all behaviors, ways of thinking and acting of the human being, involving the ethos, that is original. In fostering the culture that it is possible to observe the value of the actions. The value assigned to them is the criteria used to make the choices and configures, therefore the ethical and mythical nucleus in both space and time of Western civilization. If since always one is in a world of choices, since always is in a practical world. Philosophy, however, turned into metaphysics, hides this original question of choice, splitting the reason and subordinating practical reason to theoretical reason, in so far as that it provides the necessary structural elements (transcendent) for the formulation of judgments. Split the reason is a choice, linked to a way of acting, to an attitude, to an ethos. This is reflected in the way history is considered (successive and superior stages) and the philosophical foundation of the State and Law. The example of Modernity is eloquent, thus the pretext of overcoming the Medieval period, recovers materials of classical antiquity, without realizing, however, that the Medieval period even broken with the antiquity. Thus, it is possible to look at History not in the linearity of the succession of phases and periods, but as a cultural unfolding in definite space. This point of view allows the identification of the political demonstrations (state) and legal (law) the nature of the choices from the philosophical foundation. State and Law, although being conquests (in the positive sense) of Western civilization, retain the originating of ethos civilization. The unveiling is possible from the hermeneutic philosophy or of philosophical hermeneutics. Remove the veil that covers the relationship, not only reveals the many social problems, but it is implicit a contradiction: it remains a discourse that replaces the reality (the sole one) by the appearance (equality between the one and another) and the truth, indeed, is given to rhetoric, to the argument.The philosophical hermeneutics is not normative, but only through it is possible to say that since one is always in practical reason, one always makes choices, in the History and Language.
|
502 |
The moral status of nature : reasons to care for the natural worldSamuelsson, Lars January 2008 (has links)
<p>The subject-matter of this essay is the moral status of nature. This subject is dealt with in terms of normative reasons. The main question is if there are direct normative reasons to care for nature in addition to the numerous indirect normative reasons that there are for doing so. Roughly, if there is some such reason, and that reason applies to any moral agent, then nature has direct moral status as I use the phrase. I develop the notions of direct normative reason and direct moral status in detail and identify and discuss the two main types of theory according to which nature has direct moral status: analogy-based nature-considerism (AN) and non-analogy-based nature-considerism (NN). I argue for the plausibility of a particular version of the latter, but against the plausibility of any version of the former.</p><p>The theory that is representative of AN claims that nature has direct moral status in virtue of possessing interests. Proponents of this theory fail to show (i) that nature has interests of the kind that they reasonably want to ascribe to it, and (ii) that interests of this kind are morally significant. In contrast to AN, NN comes in a variety of different forms. I elaborate a version of NN according to which there are direct normative reasons to care for nature in virtue of (i) its unique complexity, and (ii) its indispensability (to all moral agents). I argue that even if these reasons should turn out not to apply to any moral agent, they are still genuine direct normative reasons: there is nothing irrational or misdirected about them.</p><p>Finally, I show how the question of whether there are direct normative reasons to care for nature is relevant to private and political decision-making concerning nature. This is exemplified with a case from the Swedish mountain region.</p>
|
503 |
The moral status of nature : reasons to care for the natural worldSamuelsson, Lars January 2008 (has links)
The subject-matter of this essay is the moral status of nature. This subject is dealt with in terms of normative reasons. The main question is if there are direct normative reasons to care for nature in addition to the numerous indirect normative reasons that there are for doing so. Roughly, if there is some such reason, and that reason applies to any moral agent, then nature has direct moral status as I use the phrase. I develop the notions of direct normative reason and direct moral status in detail and identify and discuss the two main types of theory according to which nature has direct moral status: analogy-based nature-considerism (AN) and non-analogy-based nature-considerism (NN). I argue for the plausibility of a particular version of the latter, but against the plausibility of any version of the former. The theory that is representative of AN claims that nature has direct moral status in virtue of possessing interests. Proponents of this theory fail to show (i) that nature has interests of the kind that they reasonably want to ascribe to it, and (ii) that interests of this kind are morally significant. In contrast to AN, NN comes in a variety of different forms. I elaborate a version of NN according to which there are direct normative reasons to care for nature in virtue of (i) its unique complexity, and (ii) its indispensability (to all moral agents). I argue that even if these reasons should turn out not to apply to any moral agent, they are still genuine direct normative reasons: there is nothing irrational or misdirected about them. Finally, I show how the question of whether there are direct normative reasons to care for nature is relevant to private and political decision-making concerning nature. This is exemplified with a case from the Swedish mountain region.
|
504 |
Dieter Henrich對康德<先驗演繹>B版的詮釋孫雩龍 Unknown Date (has links)
本文主要目的在於對《純粹理性批判》B版〈先驗演繹〉的結構有一定的理解,並希望藉由這個理解能康德的哲學有進一步的掌握。
德國學者Dieter Henrich於1969所發表論文〈康德先驗演繹的證明結構〉中,對於《純粹理性批判》B版〈先驗演繹〉的論證結構提異於過往的詮釋。他以「論證重構」(argumentative reconstruction)的方式重新地闡釋了B版〈先驗演繹〉造成廣泛的迴響。
本文將順著康德在《純粹理性批判》的理路尋找出他的問題意識。第一章將描述康德所處時代的知識論困境以及他為解決此一困境所做的「哥白尼式的革命」。「哥白尼式的革命」也使得康德走向「先驗哲學」之路。
第二章首先說明康德「先驗演繹」任務。為達成「範疇作為主觀思維形式具有客觀有效性」這個任務,康德在A版〈先驗演繹〉由經驗出發,透過對「三重綜合」的分析,得出先驗統覺。再由感性構想力與先驗統覺的結合,使得對象呈顯於意識之中作為實在的表象進而完成「先驗演繹」的任務。B版則由對「聯結」的分析中向上尋找出「先驗統覺」從而推導出範疇。最後知性透過「構想力」使經驗成為可能。知性如同時間空間言形式一般,是為經驗得以可能的必要條件,因而達到先驗演繹的目的。然而,A、B兩版的〈先驗演繹〉如此的差異正導致了兩者孰為先孰為後的優越性爭議,即A、B兩版在論證結構以及對於康德哲學基本立場相適應的問題。
在A、B兩版〈先驗演繹〉的爭論中,Dieter Henrich提出對於B版〈先驗演繹〉著名的「一個證明兩個步驟」見解。他認為先驗演繹作為一個單一的論證。在20節康德論證了範疇對於一切「具有統一性的直觀」的有效性;26節所證明的是:「所有人類的感性直觀皆具有統一性」。範疇的效力達到一切人類所擁有的經驗性直觀。結合這兩個步驟,先驗演繹的完整結論:「範疇對於一切感性經驗的對象皆具有效性」,才能被達成。
透過Dieter Henrich「一個證明兩個步驟」的詮釋顯現出康德哲學「綜合統一」的特性,知性與感性作為意識活動的不可化約作為必要條件,意識活動得以被說明。如此避免了A版中先驗演繹視為某種意識理論的語意分析,或是由自我意識分析地衍生出來的成素,而保持知性與感性各自的獨立並綜合地統一於自我意識的統一性中。
最後,筆者認為將B版〈先驗演繹〉視為一個分為兩部分的單一論證是一個良好的詮釋模型,並於文末再提出另一個學者Henry E. Allison作為此種詮釋模型的另一個展示。
|
505 |
Discurso propedêutico de Kant diante da recepção da Crítica da Razão Pura / Kants propaedeutic discourse in face of the reception of Critique of Pure ReasonAndré Luís Doneux Ferreira 08 August 2013 (has links)
O objetivo central proposto nesta dissertação é investigar como a recepção da primeira edição da Crítica da razão pura ressoa no corpus dos textos dedicados à preparar o leitor para a compreensão da obra, ou seja, como Kant reconstitui seu discurso propedêutico em relação à Crítica da razão pura a partir dos referenciais oferecidos pelos juízos do público sobre a obra publicada em 1781. O corpus, portanto, está delimitado aos três textos cuja tarefa propedêutica ou seja, a referida preparação prévia do leitor é claramente influenciada pela recepção da Crítica da razão pura. São eles: Prolegômenos a toda metafísica futura que queira apresentar-se como ciência; a Introdução à Crítica da razão pura em sua segunda edição; o Prefácio à segunda edição desta mesma obra. Esta problemática aparentemente técnica é tomada como mote para a realização de uma leitura da posição de Kant frente a acontecimentos marcantes no contexto filosófico e político dos anos seguintes à publicação da primeira edição da Crítica da razão pura marcadamente, a Pantheismusstreit e a mudança no trono prussiano em 1786, a qual, frequentemente, é tomada como causa da suposta recaída no dogmatismo, que seria observada na segunda edição da Crítica da razão pura. Não obstante, a interpretação de algumas das questões centrais para a fortuna crítica da filosofia kantiana, em particular, o estatuto do idealismo transcendental, a autonomia que deve caracterizar o uso público da razão e a elucidação do projeto de uma Crítica da razão pura também fazem parte do escopo da problemática proposta nesta dissertação. Sobretudo, importa valorizar o discurso propedêutico de Kant e as mudanças nele introduzidas, sem as quais as tentativas de compreensão de sua obra seriam inócuas, senão impossíveis de realizar-se objetivamente. / The main objective of this dissertation is to investigate how the reception of the first edition of the Critique of pure reason echoes in the text corpus devoted to prepare the reader to understand this book. In other words, how does Kant reconstitute his introductory speech in relation to the references and judgments given by the readers of the first edition, which was published in 1781? Thus, the text corpus comprises three texts where the propaedeutic task - the prior preparation of the reader - is clearly influenced by the reception of the Critique of Pure Reason. These texts are: the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, which presents itself as science, the second edition of the Introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason and the Preface of the latter. Moreover, these changes could be analyzed in Kant\'s position about remarkable events in the philosophical and political context of the years following the publication of the first edition of the Critique of Pure Reason. They were mainly the Pantheismusstreit and the change in the Prussian throne in 1786, which is often taken as the cause of the alleged \"return into dogmatism\" that was noticed in the second edition of the Critique of pure reason. On the same note, the interpretation of some of the nodal questions in the critical fortune of the Kantian philosophy, especially the status of transcendental idealism, the autonomy that must characterize the public use of reason and the elucidation of the project of a Critique of Pure Reason also compose important points for this dissertations investigation. All in all, it is crucial to valorize the introductory speech of Kant and the changes made by the author as an overall attempt to understand his work. Without it, our comprehension of such important texts would be innocuous or even impossible to occur objectively.
|
506 |
Les Revendications: Christianisme et raison chez Joseph Ratzinger / Claims: Christianity and reason in Joseph Ratzinger's workTorri, Elena 27 February 2015 (has links)
La thèse porte sur la réflexion de Ratzinger sur la "raison". La critique de la raison moderne, ainsi que l'éléboration d'un modèle alternatif de raison, permet de cerner les enjeux de la théologie de Ratzinger et de saisir le fil conducteur de ses nombreuses batailles. / Doctorat en Philosophie / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished
|
507 |
European Muslims and Liberal Citizenship: Reconciliation through Public Reason: The Case of Tariq Ramadan's Citizenship TheoryVezzani, Giovanni 21 April 2016 (has links) (PDF)
This study investigates the subject of Muslims’ citizenship in contemporary Western European societies from the viewpoint of John Rawls’s political liberalism, in particular in light of the ‘idea of public reason’ [see John Rawls, Political Liberalism, expanded edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005) and the 1997 essay “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” originally published in University of Chicago Law Review 64 (1997), 765-807 and now included in Political Liberalism, expanded edition, 440-490]. By its very nature, political liberalism does not prescribe a single model for being Muslim in contemporary Europe. Thus, one may wonder if it is too vague as a point of departure for the analysis. On the other hand, however, here I argue that political liberalism specifies a peculiar evaluative framework that allows citizens to answer questions such as “What is politically at stake when citizens of Muslim faith are publicly presented as permanent aliens in contemporary European societies?”, “On what grounds is such exclusion based?”, and “What requirements can European citizens be reasonably expected to meet?” in a distinctively political way and, ideally, to solve the political and social problems from which those questions spring. In this research, I claim that public reason provides a common discursive platform that establishes the ground for a public political identity and for shared standards for social and political criticism. Together, these two elements solve the two dimensions of the problem of ‘stability for the right reasons’ (in Rawls’s terms) in contemporary European societies, because they secure both the political inclusion of Muslims on an equal footing as citizens and civic assurance that they will remain committed to fair terms of social cooperation. A joint solution of these two apparently conflicting demands of stability for the right reasons (i.e. inclusion and mutual assurance) requires an effort in political reconciliation. After having compared public reason citizenship with two prominent normative alternatives, I will conclude that the former is an adequate ideal conception of citizenship for European societies. Finally, I will apply the justificatory evaluative methodological framework (whose requirements I will specify starting from the idea of public reason itself) to a conception of citizenship elaborated by one of the most renowned Muslim public intellectuals in Europe: Tariq Ramadan. (I justify the choice of this author in sections 2.3 and 6.1). Such an evaluation sheds light on one of the main insights of this research, that is, the idea that public reason makes a decompression of the public space possible: it frees the public space from those forces that would prevent citizens from the possibility of exercising effectively their two moral powers (once more in Rawls’s words, the ‘capacity for a sense of justice and for a conception of the good’) as free equals. In this sense, public reason tries to reconcile ideal political consensus and the fact of reasonable pluralism on a public political ground. I believe that this is the deepest meaning of what Rawls calls ‘reconciliation through public reason’: its aspiration is to reabsorb reasonable pluralism politically without annihilating it.This research is structured in three parts: the first is methodological, the second is reconstructive, and the third is evaluative. Each part is composed of two chapters.In chapter one (“General Framework”), I begin from some empirical observations about the role of perceptions and identities in relation to the issue of Muslims’ citizenship in contemporary Europe. I claim that from this point of view Islam seems to “make problem” in a very specific sense. This does not mean that Islam is a problem, but that Islam is frequently publicly presented and perceived as a problem. This is the background problem from which my work starts. Thus, I explore some dimensions of such a problem (see 1.1). Subsequently, I provide a more specific formulation of the research problem and questions and of the aims of this study. Then, the main research question (Q) is stated in these terms: Which ideal conception of citizenship should provide the common normative perspective in contemporary Western European societies, which are characterised by both demands of inclusion of Muslims and the need for solving a ‘problem of mutual assurance’ [on which, see in particular Paul Weithman, Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls’s Political Turn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010)] concerning citizens’ commitment to shared terms of social cooperation, so that those societies can be stable for the right reasons? In order to answer this question, I also specify three sub-questions that I call respectively Q1, Q2, and Q3 (see 1.2).In chapter two (“Toward a Justificatory Evaluative Political Theory”), I firstly try to frame the problem of public justification within Rawls’s political liberalism (see 2.1). I then consider a specific approach to the question of Muslim citizenship in liberal democracies which can be adopted from a Rawlsian perspective: namely, reasoning from conjecture (see 2.2). Finally, I explain my own approach (which I call justificatory evaluative political theory) by means of comparison with the method of reasoning from conjecture (see 2.3). In presenting the evaluative framework specified from a political liberal standpoint, I point out three political liberal evaluative requirements: the reciprocity requirement (RR), the consistency requirement (CR), and the civility requirement (CiR).Chapter three (“What is Public Reason?”) deals with the history of the notion of public reason from Kant to Rawls and its enunciation within Rawls’s work (see 3.1 and 3.2 respectively). In doing so, I also identify three specifications for the three political liberal evaluative requirements considered in the second chapter. Furthermore, in chapter three I also unpack CR in three different dimensions (PR1, PR2, and PR3).Chapter four (“Public Reason and Religion. Reinterpreting the Duty of Civility”) completes the reconstructive stage by analysing Rawls’s ‘wide view’ of public reason and two major lines of objection to it (see 4.1). After having discussed such criticisms, I then introduce my own interpretation of the ‘proviso,’ which is structured around a two-level (or bifurcate) model of the ‘duty of civility’ (see 4.2).Chapter five (“Reconciliation through Public Reason: Justificatory Evaluative Political Theory between Modelling and Application”) bridges the second and the third part, that is, the reconstructive and the evaluative stage respectively. In the first section of the chapter, I summarise the political liberal evaluative requirements developed in the second part. In doing this, my purpose is to present my justificatory evaluative model of public reason citizenship (see 5.1). In the second section, I firstly argue that a conception of citizenship grounded in public reason is not only possible in existing European societies, but also preferable if compared with alternative conceptions (I consider liberal multiculturalism and Cécile Laborde’s critical republicanism [Cécile Laborde, Critical Republicanism: The Hijab Controversy and Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)]) with reference to the problem under scrutiny in this research. In conclusion, I show that public reason citizenship is able to solve the theoretical problem and the main research question mentioned above: Which ideal conception of citizenship should provide the common normative perspective in contemporary Western European societies, which are characterised by both demands of inclusion of Muslims and the need for solving a problem of mutual assurance concerning citizens’ commitment to shared terms of social cooperation, so that those societies can be stable for the right reasons? In the final part of chapter five, I try to demonstrate that public reason citizenship can both include Muslim citizens and solve the assurance problem because it provides both shared standards for political criticism and a common political identity on the basis of which citizens politically recognise one another as free equals. If my argument succeeds, then public reason citizenship not only could but also should be adopted as the ideal conception of citizenship in European societies (see 5.2).In the sixth chapter (“Tariq Ramadan’s European Muslims and Public Reason”) I apply the evaluative framework based on public reason to the conception of citizenship for Muslims in Europe developed by Tariq Ramadan. (According to a principle introduced in chapter two which I call the “plausibility principle” PP, I argue that Ramadan’s theory of citizenship can be plausibly presented as a “European Muslim” approach to the issue of citizenship, see 6.1). The purpose of such an evaluative work is twofold. Firstly, it aims at examining whether and how the idea of public reason accounts for a version of European citizenship for Muslims coming from Muslims themselves. Secondly, it aims at disclosing whether what such a Muslim conception of citizenship in Europe says about the two dimensions of ‘stability for the right reasons’ of the system of social cooperation (namely, inclusion and ‘mutual assurance’) is consistent with the provisions of public reason citizenship (see 6.2-6.5). / Doctorat en Sciences politiques et sociales / N.B. 1) Le lieu de défense de la thèse en cotutelle est ROME (Luiss Guido Carli)2) L'affiliation du co-promoteur de la thèse en cotutelle (Sebastiano Maffettone) est: LUISS Guido Carli / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished
|
508 |
The fragility of justice : political liberalism and the problem of stabilityHoward, Jeffrey January 2013 (has links)
Human powers of moral reasoning and motivation are fragile. How should citizens committed to the achievement of liberal justice respond to this fact? This dissertation theorises a class of moral requirements that are central to the practice of liberal democracy but have been recently overlooked by political philosophers: the fortificational duties, which enjoin citizens to design and submit to civic practices that improve both their moral reasoning and the motivational resilience of their sense of justice. It considers the proposition that a conception of justice is unjustified if unlikely to generate its own freely willed maintenance, or stability, in the face of human nature, and it argues that this proposition is false. If justice may face overwhelming resistance unless steps are taken to fortify ourselves against our own fallibility, the right response is to pursue precisely such fortification. Chapter One sketches the orienting ideal of the dissertation: an ideal of a social world in which citizens live together as free and equal. Chapter Two assesses the proposition that we ought to modify or abandon this ideal if we determine that it is unlikely to be freely realised without serious civic or institutional assistance—a move suggested by John Rawls’s “stability test”—and it argues that the candidate arguments for this conclusion fail. The chapter instead argues that citizens are subject to moral requirements to fortify their sense of justice by designing and submitting to measures that increase the likelihood that they will accurately identify and freely comply with their fundamental moral duties. These measures together constitute a liberal democracy’s “stability charter.” Chapters Three to Six explore proposed elements of citizens’ stability charter. Chapter Three discusses the fortification of moral reasoning through democratic deliberation. Chapter Four considers what institutional mechanisms could keep democracy oriented toward the achievement of justice despite human fallibility, and it defends a minimalist conception of judicial review as a case study. Chapter Five argues that the practice of criminal punishment is justified by the duties of wrongdoers to pursue additional fortificational measures in the aftermath of their moral powers’ defective operation. And Chapter Six focuses on the special problem posed to the enduring achievement of justice by “unreasonable citizens” who reject fundamental liberal values. The distinctive contribution of the dissertation lies, firstly, in its novel appropriation of the Rawlsian ideal of stability—reconceiving stability not as a justificatory condition set by reason on our convictions, but as a practical challenge that our own convictions set for us—and, secondly, in its deployment of that insight to motivate novel arguments about the character of democratic deliberation, the limits and role of judicial review, the proper purposes of criminal punishment, and the ideal method of engagement with unreasonable citizens.
|
509 |
Liberal legitimacy : a study of the normative foundations of liberalismRossi, Enzo January 2008 (has links)
This thesis is a critique of the prominent strand of contemporary liberal political theory which maintains that liberal political authority must, in some sense, rest on the free consent of those subjected to it, and that such a consensus is achieved if a polity’s basic structure can be publicly justified to its citizenry, or to a relevant subset of it. Call that the liberal legitimacy view. I argue that the liberal legitimacy view cannot provide viable normative foundations for political authority, for the hypothetical consensus it envisages cannot be achieved and sustained without either arbitrarily excluding conspicuous sectors of the citizenry or commanding a consent that is less than free. That is because the liberal legitimacy view’s structure is one that requires a form of consent that carries free-standing normative force (i.e. normative force generated by voluntariness), yet the particular form of hypothetical consent through public justification envisaged by the view does not possess such force, because of its built-in bias in favour of liberalism. I also argue that the liberal legitimacy view is the most recent instantiation of one of two main strands of liberal theory, namely the nowadays dominant contract-based liberalism, which seeks to ground liberal political authority in a hypothetical agreement between the citizens. My case against the liberal legitimacy view, then, contributes to the revitalisation of the other main approach to the normative foundations of liberalism, namely the substantivist one, which legitimates liberal political authority through an appeal to the substantive values and virtues safeguarded and promoted by liberal polities.
|
510 |
此世立約與彼世救贖──霍布斯政治思想中的理性與啟示林浩懿, Lin, Hao-i Unknown Date (has links)
本論文試圖從霍布斯在形上學的立場,關聯至他政治思想中的相關討論。霍布斯同時兼有決定論以及懷疑論的哲學思維,他藉此劃出理性與啟示之間的界線。本論文認為霍布斯藉由「事實存在」(de facto)主權的論證方式,消解了代表論的弔詭以及第一履約者的弔詭。再者,霍布斯藉由獨特的末世歷史觀,使人對於啟示領域的焦慮與盼望,轉為支持塵世和平的重要助力。
|
Page generated in 0.0354 seconds