Depuis la parution de A Theory of Justice en 1971, la théorie de la justice comme équité de l'auteur américain John Rawls occupe une place importante dans le domaine de la justice économique et sociale. Les deux principes de justice qu'elle énonce, celui de la plus grande liberté égale pour tous ainsi que le principe de différence associé à une juste égalité des chances, ont été et continuent d'être largement discutés, analysés et critiqués aujourd'hui. Ces principes, applicables dans le cadre d'une démocratie constitutionnelle contemporaine caractérisé par le fait du pluralisme raisonnable, sont présentés par Rawls comme étant ceux que choisirait rationnellement une personne placée derrière un voile d'ignorance l'empêchant de savoir quelle position elle occupe dans la société. Cette situation initiale hypothétique dans laquelle s'effectue le choix des principes de justice par un individu représentatif constitue ce que Rawls décrit comment étant la position originelle. Dans des circonstances similaires à celles de cette position originelle, John Harsanyi estime quant à lui que le choix d'un individu rationnel n'aboutirait pas aux deux principes proposés par Rawls mais plutôt au principe de la maximisation de l'utilité. Pour en arriver à cette conclusion, Harsanyi utilise la théorie bayésienne de la décision rationnelle. Or, alors que la théorie bayésienne implique un recours abondant à des raisonnements probabilistes, Rawls rejette ce type de raisonnement probabiliste au sein de la position originelle. Il appert ainsi que Rawls et Harsanyi utilisent différemment la théorie du choix rationnel en situation d'incertitude, ce qui les amène à défendre des théories de la justice différentes: d'un côté, Rawls élabore une théorie déontologique; de l'autre, Harsanyi développe une version particulièrement sophistiquée de la théorie conséquentialiste qu'est l'utilitarisme. À mes yeux, l'utilisation faite par Harsanyi est en meilleure symbiose avec une application conventionnelle de la théorie de la décision rationnelle. Par ailleurs, bien que Rawls présente ses deux principes comme le résultat du choix rationnel d'un seul individu représentatif, l'idée principale derrière sa théorie de la justice est celle d'un accord volontaire portant sur les termes d'une coopération sociale mutuellement avantageuse entre personnes libres, égales et rationnelles. Je soutiens que cette idée contractualiste est mal servie par l'argumentation à partir de la position originelle et que les véritables arguments de Rawls en faveur de ses deux principes de justice et contre le principe utilitariste sont plus efficaces lorsqu'ils sont présentés indépendamment de la construction de la position originelle. En outre, alors que Rawls présentait initialement sa théorie comme un concurrent direct de l'utilitarisme, la relation entre les deux théories mérite d'être nuancée et précisée à la lumière des écrits subséquents de l'auteur de Théorie de la Justice. Ainsi, lorsque l'on examine leurs applications dans un contexte réaliste, l'utilitarisme et la théorie de la justice comme équité apparaissent en bout de ligne davantage comme des alliés que comme des adversaires sur l'échiquier politique des démocraties libérales contemporaines. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Rawls, Harsanyi, Principes de justice, Utilitarisme, Théorie du choix rationnel.

Dans ce mémoire, nous chercherons à développer le concept de responsabilité sociale. Nous tenterons, par le fait même, de faire la lumière sur les raisons qui font que les citoyens des sociétés modernes ne semblent plus avoir beaucoup d'intérêt pour la responsabilité sociale. Pour développer plus facilement notre pensée, nous nous appuierons tout d'abord sur une conception précise de la responsabilité; celle de Hans Jonas. Cet auteur utilise son « principe responsabilité », en particulier pour défendre l'idée que le monde court à sa fin si nous nous obstinons à vivre sans égard pour notre environnement. Pour cette raison, il faut absolument prendre nos responsabilités et agir. Nous verrons aussi que la responsabilité chez Jonas est engendrée par un sentiment et qu'elle est donc, selon l'auteur, universelle, puisque nous pouvons tous éprouver ce sentiment de responsabilité. Nous adhérerons à sa conception de la responsabilité sur certains aspects: en premier lieu dans la mesure où cette dernière est, dira-t-il, unilatérale et non-réciproque, même si nous pouvons tous être sujet ou objet de la responsabilité; en deuxième lieu, nous conviendrons aussi que la responsabilité puisse être engendrée par un sentiment et qu'elle puisse être à la base de notre action, mais avant tout, dans la mesure où nous sommes confrontés à une situation familiale ou amicale. Mais nous rejetterons, par ailleurs, l'idée que le sentiment soit le meilleur conducteur de l'action responsable surtout au niveau social. Car en effet, la responsabilité sociale conduite par le sentiment, supposerait l'impossibilité de l'exiger par des lois, légales comme morales. Par contre, nous verrons en quoi la notion de responsabilité de Jonas nous semble fortement individuelle et peu portée, malgré son aspect universaliste, sur des déterminants sociaux ou collectifs: ce avec quoi nous sommes en désaccord. Ensuite, nous examinerons la théorie de Bruckner, selon laquelle les sociétés occidentales actuelles favorisent, par l'individualisme, une infantilisation et/ou une victimisation du citoyen, qui fait obstacle à son sens de la responsabilité sociale. Nous verrons ensuite en quoi le système de pensée de Jonas valorise ce genre de sociétés individualistes. Et nous verrons ce que propose Bruckner pour revaloriser, de nouveau, l'autonomie, l'indépendance et le dialogue politique. Et finalement, nous défendrons un système politique démocratique permettant enfin l'autonomie des citoyens: celui de John Rawls. Nous le soutiendrons dans son élaboration d'une institution permettant l'adhésion des citoyens, le plein pouvoir au peuple et d'où peut enfin émerger la responsabilité sociale. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Responsabilité sociale, Hans Jonas, Pascal Bruckner, John Rawls, Démocratie.

This thesis reconstructs John Rawl's Original Position in order to show that within a liberal democratic culture, the institution of punishment ought to conform to the Moral Education Theory of Punishment, put forth by Jean Hampton. According to Hampton, punishment should facilitate a medium where the state educates the criminal on the moral implications of her wrongdoing. I argue that citizens would select the Moral Education Theory of Punishment in the Original Position, since it offers the best opportunity to redress two calamities related to the criminal's wrongdoing---namely, that it threatens the moral status of the victim, and that it results from the wrongdoer's deficient moral sensibility. Upon consideration, the representatives in the Original Position recognize that redressing either of the two calamities necessitates redressing the other; thus, both objectives reinforce one another. Consequently, the representatives would unanimously select the principles of punishment manifest in the Moral Education Theory.

In this thesis I compare the work of Ronald Dworkin and John Rawls within the context of the 'equality of what?' debate. I argue that the Rawlsian paradigm offers a much more flexible defence of a resourcist approach to egalitarianism than Dworkin's theoI)' of' equality of resources'. I argue that Dworkin's fundamental distinction between persons and circumstances is flawed because it involves commitment to a view of the person which belongs in the realm of' comprehensive moral doctrines', rather than in the realm of a political theory of justice. I also argue that an alternative distinction between choice and luck, expressed in the 'luck-neutralising aim' of egalitarianism, is inappropriate since it too involves transgressing political constraints on theories of justice. Rawls's utilisation of primary goods in his theory of justice is supported by considerations derived from the work of Thomas Scanlon. The schematic picture of relative urgency which Scanlon advances provides the rationale for the use of primary goods, and also allows us to discriminate . between compensation for handicaps and compensation for expensive tastes. Scanlon's schematic picture also frees the utilisation of primary goods from criticisms raised by Amartya Sen. Lastly, I discuss arguments advanced by Susan Hurley which enable an interpretation of Rawls's original position device which is independent of the luck-neutralising aim. Her arguments are extended as a criticism of Dworkin's hypothetical insurance market.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:25:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2011-09-30Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:08:08Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 quintanilha_fr_me_mar.pdf: 319442 bytes, checksum: 549619955e9f9ae705f61d9cbf7bc06f (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Ao abordarmos o tema justiça e democracia, o fazemos com base em John Rawls e Jürgen Habermas, filósofos que figuram de maneira expressiva no debate contemporâneo sobre o tal tema. John Rawls entende que o problema da democracia atual está na dificuldade de acordo sobre como as instituições básicas da sociedade devem ser organizadas para se atingir o respeito à liberdade e à igualdade de seus cidadãos, em outras palavras, como é possível conciliar a liberdade e a igualdade de pessoas morais a fim de que se satisfaça equitativamente a cultura pública existente na democracia a qual eles pertencem. Para tanto, Rawls apresenta uma teoria de justiça, pautada em princípios básicos que irão instituir uma sociedade bem-ordenada, possibilitando que se atinja um sistema de cooperação equitativa entre seus cidadãos. Habermas que, em sua acepção de justiça, também tenta solucionar em certa medida os mesmos problemas apresentados pelo sistema capitalista, compartilha das ideias apresentadas pela teoria rawlsiana no que concerne a seus resultados essenciais, mas não se abstém de tecer considerações críticas acerca de pontos fundamentais da teoria de justiça de Rawls. Nossa dissertação tem como objetivo, diante da análise da concepção política de justiça atual, delinear o debate entre ambos e expor as possíveis aporias decorrentes desse debate / In broaching the issue of justice and democracy, we draw upon John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, philosophers appearing in an expressive way in the contemporary debate on these topics. John Rawls believes that the problem of democracy today lies in the difficulty in agreement on how the fundamental institutions of society should be organised in order to achieve respect for the freedom and equality of its citizens, in other words, how is it possible to reconcile the freedom and equality of moral people in order to equitably meet the existent public culture in the democracy to which they belong. Therefore, Rawls presents a theory of justice established on basic principles that will found a well-ordered society, thereby making it possible to achieve a system of equitable cooperation between its citizens. Habermas, who in his sense of justice also tries to resolve to some extent the same problems presented by the capitalist system, shares Rawls’s ideas when it comes to their essential results, but does not abstain from critical considerations about fundamental points of Rawls’s theory of justice. Through the analysis of the present political conception of justice, this dissertation aims at outlining the debate between both and expose the possible aporias arising from this discussion

Orientador: Marcos Lutz Muller / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-10T11:09:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Oliveira_JovinianoJoseRezendede_M.pdf: 1301687 bytes, checksum: 71602265165401b392f8c7abca689095 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006 / Resumo: No século XX, na busca de argumentos racionais capazes de fornecer fundamentos legítimos para as principais instituições democráticas, filósofos e teóricos políticos se dedicaram à elaboração de concepções liberais de justiça. Nesse sentido, um dos esforços mais significativos foi o realizado por John Rawls (1921-2002), principalmente contido na obra Uma Teoria da Justiça (1971). A teoria de Rawls refletiu a necessidade das teorias liberais em responderem aos atuais problemas das sociedades capitalistas, principalmente às questões sobre o fundamento das obrigações políticas que se referem à legitimidade das instituições democráticas e à questão da estabilidade Nesta dissertação, não se pretende realizar uma análise puramente exegética ou comparativa das obras de Rawls, mas tratar de dois principais problemas que Rawls enfrentou em Uma Teoria da Justiça e que perpassaram todo seu projeto filosófico, ou seja, como seria possível haver consenso acerca de uma concepção de justiça para uma sociedade democrática constitucional? Os termos que constituem essa concepção conseguiriam contar com o apoio dos cidadãos? Para responder essas questões Rawls elaborou a concepção de justiça como eqüidade, um conjunto de princípios de justiça escolhido por pessoas racionais e razoáveis em uma situação inicial eqüitativa. Para Rawls, a concepção de justiça como eqüidade é estável porque ao aplicar-se às principais instituições sociais, tornariam a sociedade bem-ordenada. A atuação dos princípios de justiça nas instituições sociais geraria nos cidadãos um efetivo senso de justiça. Em Uma Teoria da Justiça, a estabilidade social é garantida pela presença desse efetivo senso de justiça, e em uma sociedade bem-ordenada os princípios de justiça garantiriam os direitos básicos para o exercício da cidadania democrática, e ainda assegurariam o auto-respeito dos indivíduos. Nesse contexto, agir conforme a justiça constitui um bem comum para as pessoas em geral. Em O Liberalismo Político (1993), Rawls revisa a sua concepção de justiça, e para dar maior realismo ao ideal de uma sociedade bem ordenada, pressupõe que essa sociedade seja marcada por uma pluralidade doutrinas morais e filosóficas abrangentes e razoáveis que são incompatíveis, mas justiça como eqüidade, por ser apresentada como uma concepção política de justiça capaz de alcançar um consenso por sobreposição entre diferentes doutrinas religiosas e filosóficas, seria capaz de solucionar a questão da estabilidade / Abstract: In the 20th century, in the search of rational arguments capable of giving legitimate fundaments to the main democratic institutions, philosophers and political theoreticians were dedicated to the elaboration of liberal conceptions of justice. In this meaning, one of the most significant efforts was made by John Rawls (1921-2002), mainly in his work A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls' theory has reflected the necessity of liberal theories in response to the actual problems of capitalist societies, regarding matters of political obligations that refer to the legitimacy of democratic institutions and also matters of stability. In this thesis, there is no intention of a pure comparative analysis of Rawls'work, but to deal with two problems that Rawls has faced in A Theory of Justice and have overlapped his entire philosophical project, that means, how would it be possible to reach a consensus concerning a conception of justice to a constitutional democratic society? Could the terms that made this conception of justice count on the support of the citizens? To answer these questions Rawls has elaborated the conception of justice as fairness, a set of principles of justice, chosen by rational and reasonable people in an equitable situation. To Rawls, the conception of justice as fairness is stable, because applying it in the main social institutions would generate in the citizens an effective sense of justice. In A Theory of Justice, social stability is guaranteed by the presence of this effective sense of justice, and in a democratic society, the principles of justice would guarantee basic rights to the use of a democratic citizenship, and would also assure an individual self-respect. In this context, acting according the justice is a common well to people in general. In Political Liberalism (1993), Rawls revises his conception of justice, and to give more realism to the ideal of a well-ordered society, he considers that this society be characterized by a plurality of wide moral and philosophical doctrines that are incompatible, but justice as fairness, because it is presented as a political conception of justice capable of reaching a overlapping consensus between different religious and philosophical doctrines, would be capable of answering the matter of stability / Mestrado / Etica / Mestre em Filosofia

Orientador: Marcos Lutz Muller / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-28T07:40:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Welter_NelsiKistemasher_M.pdf: 10134975 bytes, checksum: 596c2c38f2063717dc62b364902fe9bd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2001 / Resumo: Dado o problema de escolha que se coloca na posição original, Rawls acredita que seus princípios de justiça sejam a melhor solução dentre uma lista de princípios possíveis de ser escolhidos. Procura demonstrar, portanto, que, dada a situação de insegurança em que se encontram as partes na posição original, elas buscam, como raciocínio central, a estratégia maximin de argumentação que leva à opção pelos dois princípios. O primeiro princípio defende que as liberdades básicas se apliquem a todos igualmente. Já a primeira parte do segundo princípio propõe a maximização das expectativas das pessoas menos beneficiadas, as que possuem menos expectativas de bens primários, enquanto que a segunda parte defende que a estrutura básica da sociedade deve estar disposta de tal forma a oportunizar aos que nasceram em posições sociais menos favorecidas a igualdade de oportunidades. Esses princípios compõem uma concepção de justiça que pode especificar uma base moral apropriada para instituições que fazem parte da sociedade democrática / Abstract: Not informed. / Mestrado / Mestre em Filosofia

Memoria (licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales) / Este trabajo se divide en tres capítulos. En el primero de ellos se realiza una presentación general, introductoria aunque no elemental, de la teoría de la justicia de Rawls en su última versión, describiendo su marco general, dilucidando sus conceptos y elementos básicos claves (incluyendo a los principios de justicia). Asimismo, se esbozan las relaciones que existen entre los diferentes elementos de la justicia como equidad con el objeto de ofrecer una visión más sistemática e integrada, evitando así presentar la teoría de la justicia de Rawls como un conjunto de conceptos y partes aisladas entre sí. En el segundo capítulo se aborda y analiza la idea de igualdad en la teoría de la justicia de John Rawls y las maneras en que dicha noción se encuentra en varias partes de su teoría, atendido que la justa igualdad de oportunidades es una manifestación de tal idea. Considerando el objeto de este trabajo, se revisará especialmente cómo la idea de igualdad se manifiesta especialmente en la concepción normativa y política de la persona y en todos los principios de justicia que Rawls propone (“igualdad de la libertad”, “justa igualdad de oportunidades” y “principio de la diferencia”), las relaciones existentes entre ellos y la forma en que operan conjuntamente, especificando así los términos equitativos de la cooperación social, y en consecuencia sentando las bases de la “igualdad democrática”. Finalmente, en el capítulo III se analiza en extenso el principio de la “justa igualdad de oportunidades”: sus distintas formulaciones, sus interpretaciones, su ámbito de aplicación y, por último, sus implicaciones prácticas a nivel institucional. Se elabora, además y como ya se anticipó, una justificación que prima facie es independiente y distinta a la del argumento desde la posición originaria. En especial, se consideran las medidas o reformas políticas, jurídicas y económicas que son compatibles con dichos planteamientos, y el impacto que podrían tener en la sociedad chilena.

Philosophiae Doctor - PhD / A political arrangement is an arrangement for persons. Political arrangements are assessed in terms of the extent to which they manage the affairs of persons, which includes protecting their interests and entitlements. Political arrangements which are unable to protect the interests of its citizens, or a group of citizens, are deemed unacceptable, and where appropriate, alternative arrangements which do protect the interests and entitlements of its citizens are sought. In this thesis I argue that the political arrangement of John Rawls is unable to protect the interests and entitlements of the severely cognitively disabled who are regarded as full citizens by advanced political arrangements in the world today. I argue that it is the contract nature and conception of the person in Rawls’s system which excludes the severely cognitively disabled. This exclusion goes against our widely-held intuitions about the rights and entitlements of the severely cognitively disabled. I look to the Person Life View of Marya Schechtman, a conception of the person that includes the severely cognitively disabled, to see if a conception of the person that includes the severely cognitively disabled is able to solve the gap in Rawls’s system. I argue that it is not able to do so. I then propose a new way of approaching questions of personhood and appeal to the Aristotelian conception of the soul as the basis, arguing that membership of a type of organism typically considered a person is enough to be a complete member of that type and therefore a person.

In this thesis I argue that the tradition of political philosophy which follows in John Rawls's footsteps is obligated to concern itself not only with the realizability, but also with the realization, of justice. Although Rawls himself expresses a commitment only to the former of these, I argue that the roles which he assigns to political philosophy require him to take on the further commitment to realization. This is because these roles are meant to influence not only political philosophers, but the citizens of the wider community as well. The realistically utopian role, which I take to be the central one, requires political philosophy to inspire in that population a hope which I argue that realizability alone cannot provide. Given the deep revisions regarding the political nature of justice as fairness which Rawls made on the basis of realizability concerns, I argue that his theory must in this case be committed to a similar revision. The hope which political philosophy is meant to provide is simply not realizable until the discipline concerns itself centrally with the task of realization.