Made available in DSpace on 2014-08-20T13:17:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ataualpa_Godolphim_Feijo_Dissertacao.pdf: 1157658 bytes, checksum: 39418b95a73eb9413821bfe66409f3e2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-05-09 / Contemporaries democratic societies are deeply distinguished by the diverseness of ethical, phylosophical and religious doctrines so that the principles that govern the basic structure of society must be established in a way this pluralism be respected. John Rawls, in this context, shows his theory of justice as fairness, which proposes a political constructivism for constructing and justify the Equal Liberty and the Fair Equality of Opportunity/Difference principles. So, such principles are not introduced as more fitness for the basic structure because they allude to a prior normative order foregoing the conceptions of person and society, but because they express shared political values that constitute moral facts which, for them part, doesn t need be epistemologically proved in order to be utilized as ground points for the more general principles. Thus, arouse the concept of reasonable as opposed to true, because the idea of reasonableness alludes to an account of justification that doesn t appeal to an autonomous or heteronomous foundational authority. In this manner, this idea becomes an substitute for the idea of truth, which inevitably implies a notion of absolute and foudationalist justification that, according to Rawls, isn t suitable for a theory of justice which intends itself tolerant and freestanding. We must therefore, in order to expose this constructivism in a didactic way, analyse the three procedures which compose it, namely, original position, reflective equilibrium and overlapping consensus. It has evidenced that these procedures work in narrow syntony, so that them propitiate a normative account of objectivity for the principles of justice which can perfectly leave aside the notions of truth and absolute growndwork / As sociedades democráticas contemporâneas são profundamente marcadas pela diversidade de doutrinas éticas, filosóficas e religiosas, de modo que os princípios que regem a estrutura básica da sociedade precisam ser estabelecidos para que este pluralismo seja respeitado. Nesse ínterim, John Rawls apresenta sua teoria da justiça como equidade, a qual propõe um construtivismo político que visa a construção e a justificação dos princípios de Igual Liberdade e Igualdade Equitativa de Oportunidade/Diferença. Assim, tais princípios não são apresentados como sendo os mais adequados - para a estrutura básica social - em vista de remeterem a uma ordem normativa anterior às concepções de pessoa e sociedade, mas, sim, por expressarem valores políticos compartilhados que constituem fatos morais, os quais, por sua vez, não necessitam ser epistemologicamente comprovados a fim de poderem ser utilizados como pontos de ancoramento para os princípios mais gerais. Surge, desta forma, o conceito de razoável (reasonable) como sendo contraposto ao conceito de verdadeiro (true), uma vez que a ideia de razoabilidade remete a uma concepção de justificação que não apela para uma autoridade fundacional de cunho autônomo ou heterônomo. Logo, esta ideia vem a substituir a de verdade, a qual acarreta, inevitavelmente, uma noção de justificação absoluta e fundacionalista, justificação esta que, conforme Rawls, não é adequada para uma teoria da justiça que se pretenda tolerante e autossustentada (freestanding). Desta maneira, a fim de expormos didaticamente este construtivismo, precisamos analisar os três procedimentos que o compõem, a saber, a posição original (original position), o equilíbrio reflexivo (reflective equilibrium) e o consenso sobreposto (overlapping consensus). Constatou-se que esses procedimentos operam em estreita sintonia, de modo que propiciam uma concepção de objetividade normativa para os princípios políticos de justiça - que pode, perfeitamente, prescindir das noções de verdade e de fundamentação absoluta

Joseph Butler's moral thought and the ethical rationalism of Samuel Clarke, and his followers, John Balguy and Richard Price, are frequently distinguished, as a result of: (a) Butler’s empirical method (e.g., Kydd, Sturgeon); (b) Butler's emphasis upon self-love in the 'cool hour passage' (e.g., Prichard, McPherson); (c) Butlerian conscience, where, on a neo-Kantian reading, Butler surpassed the Clarkeans by conveying a sense of Kantian 'reflective endorsement' (e.g., Korsgaard, Darwall). The neo-Kantian criticisms of the Clarkeans in (c) are consistent with (d) Francis Hutcheson's and David Hume's criticisms of the Clarkeans; (e) modern criticisms of rational intuitionism that follow Hutcheson and Hume (e.g., Mackie, Warnock); and (f) the contention that the Clarkeans occupied an uneasy position within 'post-restoration natural law theory' (e.g., Beiser, Finnis). (d)-(e) thus underpin the distinction between Butler and the Clarkeans in (a)-(c), where the Clarkeans, unlike Butler, are criticised for representing moral truth as the passive, and self-evident, perception of potentially uninteresting facts. This study responds to (a)-(f), by arguing that Butlerian and Clarkean conscience possessed more than one referent; so that conscience meant an individual's experience of his own judgement and God’s judgement and the rational moral order. As a result of their shared theory of conscience, Butler and the Clarkeans held the same theory of moral development: moral agents mature as they move from obeying conscience according to only one of conscience's referents, to obeying conscience because to do so is to satisfy each of conscience's referents. In response to (a)-(b), this study demonstrates that the Clarkeans agreed with Butler’s method and 'cool hour': natural considerations of individual judgement and self-interest were necessary aspects of the progress towards moral maturity in both Butler and the Clarkeans. With respect to (c), it is argued that Butler and the Clarkeans shared the same understanding of practical moral reasoning as part of their shared understanding of conscience and moral development. This study places limits upon proto-Kantian readings of Butler, and neo-Kantian criticisms of the Clarkeans, while making it inconsistent to divide Butler and the Clarkeans on the basis of Butlerian conscience. In answer to (c)-(f), Clarkean conscience shows that the Clarkeans were neither complacent nor ‘externalists’. Clarkean conscience highlights how the Clarkeans positioned themselves within the tradition of Ciceronian right reason and Thomistic natural law. Consequently, in both Butler and the Clarkeans, the intuition of moral truth was not the passive perception of an 'independent realm' of normative fact, but the active encounter, in conscience, with reason qua the law of God’s nature, human nature, and the created universe.