Pour de nombreux architectes du libéralisme politique contemporain, la neutralité constitue une caractéristique définitionnelle du libéralisme politique. Il est pourtant clair que ces nouvelles formulations du libéralisme ne sont pas exemptes de tout présupposé substantiel. Le libéralisme politique de Rawls, par exemple, accorde de la valeur aux notions de liberté, d'égalité et d'équité. Comment la présence de tels présupposés substantiels est-elle conciliable avec la prétention à la neutralité ? Tel est le problème qui est à l'origine de ce travail de recherche. Pour le résoudre, un vaste travail d'explicitation des présupposés du libéralisme, et plus particulièrement du libéralisme politique de John Rawls, ainsi qu'une étude critique du terme « neutralité » ont été réalisés. Avec Rawls, contre une conception procédurale de la neutralité, je défends la neutralité des justifications et démontre qu'elle constitue la conception de la neutralité la plus plausible. Une justification neutre est définie comme justification fondée sur des conceptions communes, c'est-à-dire partagées. Se pose alors la question de la justification de ces présupposés substantiels tenus pour communs. J'indique comment, chez Rawls, la question de la justification reçoit une réponse conceptuelle. Rawls résout cette question en soutenant une conception cohérentiste de la justification et en développant un certain nombre de concepts innovants, au premier rang desquels l'équilibre réfléchi, dont je défends une conception extensive. Si puissants que soient ces outils conceptuels, dans la mesure où les présupposés du libéralisme sont considérés comme étant implicites dans la culture politique publique, ces présupposés semblent néanmoins appeler une autre forme de justification : une justification herméneutique. Si les présupposés du libéralisme sont le résultat d'une interprétation, il faut être capable de rendre raison de cette interprétation. La deuxième partie de ce travail se met en quête d'une telle justification herméneutique, en se fondant sur l'hypothèse qu'elle est disponible dans les travaux que Rawls consacre à l'histoire de la philosophie : les Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy et les Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. Pour de nombreux architectes du libéralisme politique contemporain, la neutralité constitue une caractéristique définitionnelle du libéralisme politique. Il est pourtant clair que ces nouvelles formulations du libéralisme ne sont pas exemptes de tout présupposé substantiel. Le libéralisme politique de Rawls, par exemple, accorde de la valeur aux notions de liberté, d'égalité et d'équité. Comment la présence de tels présupposés substantiels est-elle conciliable avec la prétention à la neutralité ? Tel est le problème qui est à l'origine de ce travail de recherche. Pour le résoudre, un vaste travail d'explicitation des présupposés du libéralisme, et plus particulièrement du libéralisme politique de John Rawls, ainsi qu'une étude critique du terme « neutralité » ont été réalisés. Avec Rawls, contre une conception procédurale de la neutralité, je défends la neutralité des justifications et démontre qu'elle constitue la conception de la neutralité la plus plausible. Une justification neutre est définie comme justification fondée sur des conceptions communes, c'est-à-dire partagées. Se pose alors la question de la justification de ces présupposés substantiels tenus pour communs. J'indique comment, chez Rawls, la question de la justification reçoit une réponse conceptuelle. Rawls résout cette question en soutenant une conception cohérentiste de la justification et en développant un certain nombre de concepts innovants, au premier rang desquels l'équilibre réfléchi, dont je défends une conception extensive. Si puissants que soient ces outils conceptuels, dans la mesure où les présupposés / Many supporters of political liberalism consider that neutrality is part of the definition of liberalism. Yet, it is obvious that these new forms of liberalism are not free from substantive presuppositions. Rawls's political liberalism, as an example, values freedom, equality and fairness. But how can such substantive commitments be compatible with the claim for neutrality?This problem is the starting point of this thesis. To solve it, I work to make the presuppositions of liberalism explicit, especially those of Rawls's political liberalism, and I carry out a critical study of the word “neutrality”. With Rawls and against a procedural conception of neutrality, I support a conception of neutrality as justificatory neutrality, which I consider the most believable conception of neutrality. A neutral justification is defined as a justification which is based on shared conceptions. So, the question to be answered is the question of the justification of these substantive presuppositions, which are taken for shared. I study how Rawls gives a conceptual answer to the question of justification. Rawls answers this question supporting a coherentist conception of justification and developing innovative concepts, such as the concept of reflective equilibrium, of which I support an extensive conception. However convincing these concepts may be and because Rawls considers that the liberal presuppositions are implicit in the public political culture, it seems to me that these presuppositions call for another form of justification: a hermeneutic justification. If the presuppositions are the final result of an interpretation, this interpretation has to be justified. The second part of this thesis looks for such a hermeneutic justification. Its main assumption is that such a justification can be found in Rawls's works on the history of philosophy: the Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy and the Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy.

O tema do acesso à justiça é aquele que mais diretamente equaciona as relações entre o processo e a justiça social, entre igualdade jurídico-formal e desigualdade socioeconômica. A consagração constitucional dos novos direitos econômicos e sociais e sua expansão paralela à do Estado-Providência transformou o direito ao acesso efetivo à justiça em um direito-chave, um direito cuja denegação acarretaria a de todos os demais. Daí a constatação de que a organização da justiça não pode ser reduzida à sua dimensão técnica, socialmente neutra, devendo investigar-se as funções sociais por elas desempenhadas e, em particular, o modo como as possibilidades técnicas no seu seio veiculam opções a favor ou contra interesses sociais divergentes ou mesmo antagônicos. Desde a década de 70 do século passado, diversos pesquisadores e analistas sociais têm contribuído para colocar em questão as formas de resolução de conflitos características do Estado Moderno, bem como para apontar caminhos e problematizar as experiências concretas de informalização, desjudicialização, mediação e arbitragem que vão surgindo. Pensando no acesso à justiça como um direito primordial sem o qual os demais direitos não se concretizam e nesses meios de resolução de conflitos, o objetivo desse trabalho é analisar se a Justiça Restaurativa é capaz de ampliar o acesso à justiça em sua dimensão material e formal. Atualmente, a importância da Justiça Restaurativa é reconhecida inclusive pela ONU, já que sua prática tem possibilitado a pacificação social, na medida em que sugere uma reavaliação do fenômeno criminológico desde suas causas, passando pela aplicação da justiça ate suas consequências futuras. Para chegar ao objetivo do trabalho, a teoria de John Rawls sobre a justiça como equidade é importante para, por meio do instituto do equilíbrio reflexivo, a Justiça Restaurativa ser pensada justamente como um mecanismo de adequação aos princípios essenciais de uma sociedade cooperativa. / Access to justice is the theme that more directly equates the relations between process and social justice, formal-legal equality and socioeconomic inequality. The constitutional praise of the new economic and social rights and their expansion alongside the Welfare State turned the right to effective access to justice into a key one, a right whose denial would lead to the denial of all other rights. Hence the conclusion that the organization of justice cannot be reduced to its technical, socially neutral dimension; instead, its social functions must be investigated, particularly in regard to the way technical possibilities convey options in favor of or against social interests that may diverge or even antagonize. Since the 1970s, many researchers and social analysts have contributed to question the ways of conflict resolution that characterize the Modern State, as well as to point ways and problematize concrete experiences of informalization, non-judicialization, mediation and arbitration that emerge. Considering access to justice as a primordial right without which the other ones do not materialize and taking into account these ways of conflict resolution, this work aims to analyze whether Restorative Justice is able to extend the access to justice in its material and formal dimensions. Currently, the United Nations recognizes the importance of Restorative Justice, since its practice enables social pacification by means of suggesting a reevaluation of the criminologic phenomenon already in its causes and also of the application of justice and its future consequences. To get to the central point of the work, John Rawls\' theory on justice as fairness, by means of the institute of the reflective equilibrium, is important for Restorative Justice to be thought exactly as a mechanism of adequacy to the essential principles of a cooperative society.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2018-04-23T14:18:43Z No. of bitstreams: 2 Tiaraju Molina Andreazza_.pdf: 1637018 bytes, checksum: cd926fa9e8d8aa8ed47d0ee55f318e84 (MD5) Tiaraju Molina Andreazza_.pdf: 1637018 bytes, checksum: cd926fa9e8d8aa8ed47d0ee55f318e84 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-23T14:18:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 Tiaraju Molina Andreazza_.pdf: 1637018 bytes, checksum: cd926fa9e8d8aa8ed47d0ee55f318e84 (MD5) Tiaraju Molina Andreazza_.pdf: 1637018 bytes, checksum: cd926fa9e8d8aa8ed47d0ee55f318e84 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-14 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Como devemos conduzir nossas investigações morais para descobrir no que acreditar sobre questões morais? Como a plausibilidade de juízos, teorias e princípios morais deve ser avaliada? Como devemos tentar remover nossas dúvidas quando estamos incertos sobre o que é certo ou errado, bom ou mau, justo ou injusto? Este trabalho é um estudo do método do equilíbrio reflexivo, um método que fornece um modelo para a investigação moral que permitiria responder adequadamente questões como essas. Desde que esse método se tornou popular em filosofia moral após ter sido empregado e defendido por John Rawls em A Theory of Justice (1971), tem sido costumeiro interpretá-lo como um modelo coerentista para a investigação e justificação moral. De acordo com essa interpretação, a investigação moral adequada é em um processo no qual o indivíduo busca a maximização da coerência e a minimização da incoerência entre seus os juízos morais, os seus princípios morais e as suas crenças não morais relevantes, e cujo valor estaria em sua capacidade de garantir para a pessoa que o segue a aceitação de crenças morais que seriam epistemicamente justificadas por essas relações de coerência. Este estudo procura se contrapor a essa interpretação oferecendo em seu lugar um modelo intuicionista para o equilíbrio reflexivo. De acordo com esse modelo, a investigação moral adequada é um processo em que uma pessoa procura descobrir o que é congruente com suas intuições morais, ou o que é plausível à luz daquelas proposições morais que lhe parecem ser intuitivamente verdadeiras, e o valor desse processo estaria na sua capacidade de colocar uma pessoa em posição de aceitar proposições morais com base nas razões que ela tem para sustentá-las, o que é uma parte necessária da crença moral epistemicamente justificada. O estudo defende o equilíbrio reflexivo mostrando como ele, quando interpretado segundo uma abordagem intuicionista, pode ser visto em uso nas investigações morais de filósofos competentes, como John Rawls, Philippa Foot, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Peter Singer e outros. A tese defendida é que uma abordagem intuicionista, e apenas ela, responde satisfatoriamente às principais objeções dirigidas ao método por seus críticos. / How we should conduct our moral inquiry to discover what to believe about moral questions? How the plausibility of judgments, theories and moral principles should be evaluated? How we should try to remove our doubts when we are uncertain about what is right or wrong, good or bad, just or injust? This is a study about the reflective equilibrium, a method that offers a model for the moral inquiry which answers these questions. Since it became popular in moral philosophy following its use and defense by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971), the reflective equilibrium has been interpreted as a coherentist model for the moral inquiry and justification. According to this interpretation, the proper moral inquiry it is a process in which one tries to maximize coherence and minimize incoherence between his moral beliefs, moral principles and relevant nonmoral beliefs, a process that it is valuable by ensuring that the person who follows it ends up accepting moral beliefs which are epistemically justified by these coherence relations. This study intends to argue against this view developing in its place an intuitionist model for the reflection equilibrium. According to this model, the proper moral inquiry it is a process in which one tries to discover what its supported by his moral intuitions, or what is plausible from the point of view of those moral propositions that intuitively appears to be true, a process that it is valuable because it makes the person following it able to hold its moral beliefs based on the reasons that she has to believe them, which is a necessary part of the epistemically justified moral belief. The study argues in favor of this view by showing how the reflective equilibrium, when interpreted as a intuionist method, can be seen as the method used in the moral inquiry of competent moral philosophers, such as John Rawls, Philippa Foot, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Peter Singer and others. The study defends the thesis that only an intuitionist approach can deal with the main objections to the reflective equilibrium presented by its critics.

O tema do acesso à justiça é aquele que mais diretamente equaciona as relações entre o processo e a justiça social, entre igualdade jurídico-formal e desigualdade socioeconômica. A consagração constitucional dos novos direitos econômicos e sociais e sua expansão paralela à do Estado-Providência transformou o direito ao acesso efetivo à justiça em um direito-chave, um direito cuja denegação acarretaria a de todos os demais. Daí a constatação de que a organização da justiça não pode ser reduzida à sua dimensão técnica, socialmente neutra, devendo investigar-se as funções sociais por elas desempenhadas e, em particular, o modo como as possibilidades técnicas no seu seio veiculam opções a favor ou contra interesses sociais divergentes ou mesmo antagônicos. Desde a década de 70 do século passado, diversos pesquisadores e analistas sociais têm contribuído para colocar em questão as formas de resolução de conflitos características do Estado Moderno, bem como para apontar caminhos e problematizar as experiências concretas de informalização, desjudicialização, mediação e arbitragem que vão surgindo. Pensando no acesso à justiça como um direito primordial sem o qual os demais direitos não se concretizam e nesses meios de resolução de conflitos, o objetivo desse trabalho é analisar se a Justiça Restaurativa é capaz de ampliar o acesso à justiça em sua dimensão material e formal. Atualmente, a importância da Justiça Restaurativa é reconhecida inclusive pela ONU, já que sua prática tem possibilitado a pacificação social, na medida em que sugere uma reavaliação do fenômeno criminológico desde suas causas, passando pela aplicação da justiça ate suas consequências futuras. Para chegar ao objetivo do trabalho, a teoria de John Rawls sobre a justiça como equidade é importante para, por meio do instituto do equilíbrio reflexivo, a Justiça Restaurativa ser pensada justamente como um mecanismo de adequação aos princípios essenciais de uma sociedade cooperativa. / Access to justice is the theme that more directly equates the relations between process and social justice, formal-legal equality and socioeconomic inequality. The constitutional praise of the new economic and social rights and their expansion alongside the Welfare State turned the right to effective access to justice into a key one, a right whose denial would lead to the denial of all other rights. Hence the conclusion that the organization of justice cannot be reduced to its technical, socially neutral dimension; instead, its social functions must be investigated, particularly in regard to the way technical possibilities convey options in favor of or against social interests that may diverge or even antagonize. Since the 1970s, many researchers and social analysts have contributed to question the ways of conflict resolution that characterize the Modern State, as well as to point ways and problematize concrete experiences of informalization, non-judicialization, mediation and arbitration that emerge. Considering access to justice as a primordial right without which the other ones do not materialize and taking into account these ways of conflict resolution, this work aims to analyze whether Restorative Justice is able to extend the access to justice in its material and formal dimensions. Currently, the United Nations recognizes the importance of Restorative Justice, since its practice enables social pacification by means of suggesting a reevaluation of the criminologic phenomenon already in its causes and also of the application of justice and its future consequences. To get to the central point of the work, John Rawls\' theory on justice as fairness, by means of the institute of the reflective equilibrium, is important for Restorative Justice to be thought exactly as a mechanism of adequacy to the essential principles of a cooperative society.

This study argues that a pragmatic conception of religion would enable philosophers to make important contributions to our ability to handle concrete problems involving religion. The term 'philosophical anthropology', referring to different interpretative frameworks, which philosophers draw on to develop conceptions of human phenomena, is introduced. It is argued that the classical pragmatists embraced a philosophical anthropology significantly different from that embraced by most philosophers of religion; accordingly, pragmatism offers an alternative conception of religion. It is suggested that a conception of religion is superior to another if it makes more promising contributions to our ability to handle extra-philosophical problems of religion. A pragmatic philosophical anthropology urges us to view human practices as responses to shared experienced needs. Religious practices develop to resolve tensions in our views of life. The pictures of human flourishing they persent reconstruct our views of life, thereby allowing more significant interaction with the environment, and a more significant life. A modified version of reflective equilibrium is developed to show how we, on a pragmatic conception of religion, are able to supply resources for criticism and reform of religious practices, so the extra-philosophical problems of religion can be handled. Mainstream philosophy of religion attempts to offer such resources by presenting analogy-arguments from religious experience. Those arguments are, however, unconvincing. A comparison of the two conceptions of religion thus results in a recommendation to reconstruct philosophy of religion.

When faced with an emergency situation, politicians are often forced to sacrifice their core moral principles in order to better serve the immediate public interest. This is commonly described as the Dirty Hands dilemma. Dirty Hands theorists conditionally defend politicians, but they leave the dilemma under-defined. Realists think that politicians do not even need defence, but their approach is overly relativistic and fails to distinguish between moral and immoral exercises of political authority. The present study critically engages with both sides of the debate in two parts. First, I use the method of conceptual analysis — and specifically conceptual disambiguation — to find out how each side conceives of the nature of the Dirty Hands dilemma. I find that (1) the dilemma emerges when a politician is forced to disregard the core human rights of certain individuals or groups to safeguard similar rights of others, and (2) the Realists fail to distinguish the concept of Dirty Hands from the concept of Political Compromise and Dirty Hands dilemmas from ordinary moral dilemmas. Second, using the method of reflective equilibrium, I advance the normative judgement that, instead of expressing guilt and paying the price, politicians should commit to not making their actions easy precedents when they confront a Dirty Hands dilemma. This study offers a better theoretical understanding of the Dirty Hands dilemma and a practical approach to distinguishing between moral and immoral exercises of political authority.

This thesis examines Robert Nozick’s critique of John Rawls’s theory of justice, focusing on the Chamberlain Argument as a challenging example in their debate. The Chamberlain Argument illustrates the tension between Rawls’s theory, which aims to distribute resources according to a certain pattern for social benefit, and its implications on individual freedom. Nozick argues that such patterned theories infringe upon individual liberty by coercively redistributing resources. Through analysis of patterned theory, it becomes evident, Nozick claims, that such frameworks prioritize specific distributions over individual liberty. I find that Nozick made a valid point in his objection to Rawls. However, I consider that the problem of patterned theories represented by Nozick in his critique of Rawls, is rooted in the first principle, not in the second. I assert that there is much more literature on Rawls’s second principle, but much less on his first principle. To address Nozick’s critique, this thesis proposes a modification to Rawls’s first principle, emphasizing self-respect as a foundational value. By reconceptualizing liberty within the Rawlsian framework, this thesis aims to fortify it against objections like the Chamberlain Argument, ultimately enhancing its coherence and theoretical robustness. For this reason, the research question is as follows: How can the Rawlsian theory overcome the Chamberlain argument? The one thesis I will pursue is that Rawls’s two principles can be immune to Nozick’s Chamberlain Argument, when the first principle is modified according to the priority of rights over liberty. To do so, the goal is to defend a Rawlsian pattern theory of justice. Firstly, I show that the first principle should be grounded on the priority of the rights instead of the good of the person. By reconceptualizing the concept of self-respect, I show that Rawls’s first principle is mainly focused on a negative concept of liberty, which I modify to a positive concept through what I call reciprocal self-respect. Secondly, I formulate responses to Nozick’s Chamberlain Argument and argue that social justice requires a holistic view of the society, not only as individuals, but also as collective and common. This view emphasizes the interdependency of individuals in a society, which presupposes duties of reciprocal self-respect, chosen rationally in the original position behind the veil of ignorance. Thus, Chamberlain would never have been able to make profits and succeed without society, infrastructure, opportunities and hotbed for success and self-determination.

Ce mémoire cherche à porter au jour les présupposés normatifs substantiels de la théorie de la justice comme équité (TJÉ) de John Rawls. Plus précisément, il tente de déduire puis de définir ses présupposés éthiques, c’est-à-dire ce qu’elle tient implicitement pour être des biens constitutifs de la justice. En supposant l’existence d’éléments normatifs se rapportant à la question du bien en amont des normes du juste, cette proposition de recherche contredit en elle-même le trait essentiel du déontologisme procédural rawlsien, soit la primauté du juste (right) sur le bien. Nous suivons en cela Paul Ricœur et réitérons sa thèse du primat de l’éthique, entendue comme visées à propos du bien, sur la morale, comprise comme normes à visées universelles définissant des obligations. Selon cette thèse, toute norme morale s’ancre nécessairement dans un sens éthique qui la précède ou, pour le dire dans les mots de Rawls, dans un sens de la justice. Nous tentons en premier lieu de démontrer que deux présupposés éthiques, en tant qu’idéaux non thématisés, règlent pourtant de bout en bout toute la modélisation théorique de la TJÉ. On pourrait ainsi dire qu’ils sont les points fixes normatifs les plus élémentaires du sens de la justice opérant l’équilibre réfléchi. Il s’agit des présupposés de l’autodétermination des personnes et de la réciprocité symétrique. Ensuite, à l’aide de ce que Ricœur nommait sa « petite éthique », laquelle se trouve en dialogue explicite avec Rawls, nous nous efforçons de préciser les visées originaires à propos du bien donnant force de norme à chacun des deux présupposés éthiques. Une fois la particularité du sens de la justice à l’origine de la TJÉ ainsi exposée et précisée, il sera possible de prendre la mesure des impasses théoriques et pratiques auxquelles se bute forcément une théorie politique dont l’ambition de fonder la légitimité politique sur l’entente mutuelle s’autorise de la prétention à éviter les questions controversées à propos du bien. / This thesis seeks to bring to light the substantial normative presuppositions of the theory of justice as equity (TJE) of John Rawls. More precisely, it tries to deduce and define its ethical presuppositions, that is to say what it implicitly considers to be constitutive goods of justice. In assuming the existence of normative elements that pertain to the question of the good prior to the norms of justice, this research proposal in itself questions the essential feature of Rawlsian procedural deontologism, namely the primacy of the right over the good. In this regard we follow Paul Ricœur, as we reiterate his thesis on the primacy of ethics, understood as ends relatives to the good, on morality, understood as universal norms defining obligations. According to this thesis, any moral norm is necessarily anchored in an ethical aim that precedes it or, to put it in Rawls' words, in a sense of justice. We first attempt to demonstrate that two ethical presuppositions, as non-thematized ideals, nevertheless govern from end to end all the theoretical ordering of the TJE. We could thus say that they are the most elementary normative fixed points of the sense of justice operating the reflective equilibrium. These are the assumptions of self-determination of people and symmetrical reciprocity. Then, using what Ricœur called his "petite éthique", which is in explicit dialogue with Rawls, we attempt to specify the original aims of the good which give normative potency to each of the two ethical presuppositions. Once the particularity of the sense of justice at the origin of the TJE is thus exposed and clarified, it will be possible to recognize the theoretical and practical shortcomings that a political theory that claims to avoid controversial questions about the good in order to justify the possibility of reaching mutual understanding will inevitably encounter.

This essay focus on the normative debate between cosmopolitanism and statism in the context of global distributive justice. The notion of basic structure and negative rights examines separately in two questions to understand distributive justice as a global subject rather than only national. Statists as Rawls holds the position that global distributive justice prerequisite a basic structure with coercive instrument. Pogge as cosmopolitan arguments for the existence of global basic structure, by addressing inequalities in real-world politics, in the form of negative rights violation. The aim of this study is to justify global distributive justice on cosmopolitan duties, based on normative political theory, reflective equilibrium, and conceptual analysis. The main issue is formulated into two questions in the following: • Does reciprocity constitute a global basic structure that presupposes resource distribution? • Can self-respect as foundation of rights justify global distributive justice? I do this first by analyzing the concept of basic structure, based on the notion reciprocity. This is to identify the basic structure of the global system that prerequisite global distributive justice. Second, I analyze Pogge’s formulation of negative rights as cosmopolitan rights, to modify them to a positive concept of rights. This is in purpose to avoid the libertarian counterargument presented by Narveson, that negative rights fail as a ground of cosmopolitan duties. I show first that coercion is not a necessary condition, but only sufficient for the basic structure. Thus, the global basic structure exists and prerequisite distributive justice, based on reciprocity. Unlike the national basic structure of coercive instrument, the global basic structure grounds on several global threats and challenges that tie all nations as alternative concept of coercion. Second, I show that cosmopolitan duties can be grounded on positive rights. I do this through the notion of self-respect and deontological ethics, which success to avoid the libertarian critique of cosmopolitan duties.

Ce mémoire porte sur les intuitions utilisées en philosophie morale contemporaine. Les intuitions sont interrogées sur trois aspects : leur nature, leur fiabilité et leur rôle. Concernant la nature des intuitions, celles-ci sont présentées comme des jugements spontanés ayant une valeur épistémique « à première vue ». Concernant la fiabilité des intuitions, trois grands types de raisons de douter de leur fiabilité sont considérés, à savoir les résultats de certaines études scientifiques montrant de diverses manières leur instabilité, les études réalisées par le mouvement de philosophie expérimentale afin d'illustrer le phénomène du désaccord intuitif, et enfin, le problème de l'origine douteuse des intuitions. Aucune de ces raisons n'est jugée efficace afin de discréditer l'usage des intuitions en philosophie. Concernant le rôle des intuitions, une distinction est proposée entre deux grands types d'usage philosophique contemporain. D'une part, ce qu'on peut appeler la méthodologie standard en philosophie morale contemporaine consiste en une combinaison d’expériences de pensée et de la méthode de l’équilibre réfléchi. Différentes manières d'aborder la méthode de l'équilibre réfléchi sont présentées, et le modèle de l'équilibre réfléchi large développé par Norman Daniels est jugé le plus efficace. D'autre part, les intuitions sont parfois utilisées en philosophie morale contemporaine dans le cadre de la théorie de l'intuitionnisme éthique. La théorie est défendue contre diverses objections, et elle est montrée compatible avec la méthode de l’équilibre réfléchi. / The object of this Master’s thesis is the intuitions used in contemporary moral philosophy. Intuitions are investigated on three aspects: their nature, their reliability, and their role. Regarding the nature of intuitions, they are presented as spontaneous judgments with “prima facie” epistemic value. Regarding the reliability of intuitions, three general types of reasons to question their reliability are considered, namely, the results of certain scientific studies showing in various ways Fiabilité des intuitionstheir unreliability, studies conducted in the field of experimental philosophy which emphasize the phenomenon of intuitive disagreement, and finally, the problem of the origin of intuitions. None of these reasons is judged good enough to discredit the use of intuitions in philosophy. Regarding the role of intuitions, a distinction is drawn between two main types of usage in contemporary philosophy. On the one hand, what can be called the “standard methodology” in contemporary moral philosophy consists in the combination of thought experiments and the method of reflective equilibrium. Different ways of construing the method of reflective equilibrium are considered, and the “Wide Reflective Equilibrium” model developed by Norman Daniels is judged the most successful. On the other hand, intuitions are sometimes used in contemporary moral philosophy in the context of the theory of ethical intuitionism. The theory is defended against various objections, and it is shown to be compatible with the method of reflective equilibrium.