Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-10T18:26:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jaqueline Fatima Roman.pdf: 737126 bytes, checksum: 08e98b205f6f03e2dc7ee17b8e74ff99 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-07-04 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This work aims to investigate what are the legitimacy foundations of political law in the thoughts of Jean Jacques Rousseau. For the Geneva-born philosopher, the man is not a political being by nature, as politics is directly related to social life. Only in the social state it is possible to talk about such law. However, the present work starts with the study of the state of nature, and eventually it will approach the social state. This is justified by the fact that it is in this state that Rousseau, through the hypothetical natural man, builds the idea of what he considers to be a reference of human being. Leaning on the natural man, he finds arguments to differ artificial and natural features of man. The study of the state of nature is also important because in it there are feelings that will be necessary to form a society founded on the legitimate political law, as it is the case of love of oneself. This might be the starting point to understand the legitimacy foundation in Rousseau s political law. Starting from the study of the differences between the state of nature and the social state, it is possible to show why the pact between rich and poor, founded on the inequality, is considered illegitimate by Rousseau, and also reason about the necessary political foundations for the building of a legitimate civil pact. What are the necessary conditions for the man to live in society as free as before? In Rousseau s point of view, the man cannot renounce his freedom; otherwise he will lose his human condition, as each man has the same value as the others from his species, and therefore cannot dominate or obey others. Thus, a civil pact similar to the pact between rich and poor is completely illegitimate to Rousseau because it allows the domination of a man over another, denaturalizing him. The free man is the one that obeys only his own will. But how can we envisage life in society with the obedience of solely one s own will, that is, from what reference is it possible to found a legitimate pact and, consequently, Political Law? To solve this problem, our philosopher proposes a new civil pact, and in it the idea of popular sovereignty: people reunited in assembly are the only legitimate sovereign and apt to approve laws which they have to obey. These laws must be in accordance with the general will, which aims at the common well-being and the public utility. That way, each man votes according to his conscience, without any influences, and obeys only his own will, which is consequently reflected in the laws he has approved. Therefore, a man cannot relegate to a representative the power to approve laws, because the exercise of sovereignty is inalienable. This is the legitimate way that Rousseau found for the man to obey but not to serve. / O presente trabalho tem como objetivo investigar quais são os fundamentos de legitimidade do direito político no pensamento de Jean Jacques Rousseau. Para o filósofo genebrino, o homem não é um ser político por natureza, tendo em vista que a política está diretamente relacionada com a vida social. Somente no estado social se pode falar em tal direito. No entanto, o presente trabalho inicia com o estudo do estado de natureza, para posteriormente, abordar o estado social. Tal fato se justifica, porque é nesse estado que Rousseau, através do homem no estado de natureza, constrói a ideia do que considera ser um referencial de ser humano. É debruçado sobre o homem no estado de natureza que ele encontra argumentos para diferenciar características artificiais e naturais do homem. O estudo do estado de natureza também é importante porque nele já existem sentimentos que serão necessários para a formação de uma sociedade fundamentada em um direito político legítimo, como é o caso do amor de si. Talvez seja esse o ponto de partida para a compreensão dos fundamentos de legitimidade do direito político em Rousseau. A partir do estudo das diferenças entre o estado natural e o estado social, é possível demonstrar porque o pacto dos ricos, fundamentado na desigualdade, é considerado ilegítimo para Rousseau, e ainda discorrer sobre os fundamentos políticos necessários para a construção de um pacto civil legítimo. Quais são as condições necessárias para que o homem se mantenha em sociedade tão livre quanto antes? Na visão de Rousseau, o homem não pode renunciar a sua liberdade, sob pena de perder a condição humana, porque cada homem possui o mesmo valor que os demais de sua espécie, e por isso não pode dominar ou obedecer. Assim, um pacto civil nos moldes do denominado pacto dos ricos é para Rousseau completamente ilegítimo, porque legaliza a dominação de um homem sobre o outro, desnaturando-o. O homem livre é aquele que obedece somente a sua própria vontade. Mas como equacionar a vida em sociedade com a obediência somente aos seus próprios desígnios, ou seja, a partir de que referência se torna possível fundamentar um pacto legítimo e, por conseqüência, o Direito Político? Para resolver esse problema, nosso filósofo propõe um novo pacto civil, e nele a ideia da soberania popular: o povo reunido em assembléia é o único soberano legítimo e apto para aprovar leis que tem de obedecer. Essas leis devem estar de acordo com a vontade geral, que sempre visa o bem comum e a utilidade pública. Assim, cada homem vota de acordo com sua consciência, sem influências, e obedece somente a sua própria vontade, que consequentemente esta refletida nas leis que aprova. Desta forma, o homem não pode delegar a um representante o poder de aprovar as leis, porque o exercício da soberania é inalienável. Essa é a forma legítima que Rousseau encontrou para o homem obedecer sem servir.

C’est en 1758 que Rousseau constate qu’il ne peut achever rapidement les Institutions Politiques, et décide d’en séparer le Contrat social et Lettre à d’Alembert sur les spectacles. En 1761, Il finit de travailler sur une partie des textes de l’Abbé de Saint-Pierre qui lui permis d’avoir une approche claire avec les relations internationales. Ce texte dit extrait du projet de paix perpétuelle de l’abbé de Saint-Pierre se veut une solution de sortie de crise politique dans laquelle les États européens s’étaient engouffrés. Les premières notions telles l’idée d’une citoyenneté européenne ou d’une confédération voyaient le jour. / It is in 1758 that Rousseau finds that he can quickly complete the Political Institutions, and decided to separate the Social Contract and Letter to d'Alembert on the shows. In 1761 he finished work on a part of the texts of the Abbot of St. Peter which allowed him to have a clear approach to international relations. This text says excerpt of perpetual peace project of the Abbot of Saint-Pierre wants a political crisis solution in which European states were engulfed. The first such concepts the ideas of European citizenship or a confederation were emerging.

盧梭的思想內涵豐富，不同學者由於關切的焦點不同，其所研究的主題也各異，例如，有些學者關懷的是盧梭思想在觀念史上的定位與影響，另外有些學者則是關心盧梭思想中的民主或極權成分，但是關於盧梭思想中公民共和主義的要素，則少有人提及。因此，本文的主要論旨即是從公民共和主義的核心觀念──腐化與德行此一角度切入，分析其政治思想。 根據此一研究主軸，本文第二章探討的是盧梭思想中的腐化意涵、腐化的歷程，以及造成腐化的各種因素，並將腐化的現象區分成政治腐化與和財產相關的社會腐化。面對這些腐化現象，盧梭是以德行作為對治之道，一方面以德行為標準批判當時政治、社會的腐化，另一方面則是以德行作為理想政治共同體重建的基礎。盧梭的這些想法似乎是深受古典共和主義思想家，以及古斯巴達與羅馬兩共和國影響。關於盧梭德行觀將在本文第三章探討。 以德行為基礎的政治共同體重建，將可在盧梭的社會契約理論，以及盧梭為其他國家草擬憲法、改革政制的著作中獲得印證。社會契約接櫫了理想政治共同體的原型，而社會契約的締結與維繫則有賴一位卓然出眾的立法家，他一方面轉化、消除造成腐化的種種因素，另一方面則創造培育德行的環境，使「德行共和國」的理想得以實現。 然而並非所有思想家對腐化的思考方向都和盧梭相同，孟德斯鳩與康士坦都提出和盧梭相異的思考，本文最後將探討這些思想家和盧梭思想的差異之處。 / The essence of Rousseau‘s thought is rich. A wide variety of focuses are thus occurred due to various scholar’s different concerns. Their research subjects are different too. For example, some scholars concern the position and influence of Rousseau’s thought on the idea of history, while others concern the components of democracy and authoritarianism of his thought. Nevertheless, the concerning of the elements of Rousseau’s thought on civic republicanism is not very prevailing. The main purpose of this thesis is from the core concept of civic republicanism, i.e., corruption and virtue, to analyze Rousseau’s political thought. Based on this research core, the second chapter of this thesis discusses the meaning of corruption, its process and the factors in causing corruption, as well as to divide the phenomena of corruption into political corruption and social corruption which is relevant to property. Rousseau dealt these corrupt phenomena with virtue. One the one hand, he applied virtue as the standard to criticize the contemporary political and social corruption. On the other hand, he applied virtue as the foundation to reconstruct ideal political community. The thought of Rousseau seems to be influenced by the classical republicanism thinkers and the two ancient Republic, i. e., Sparta and Rome Republic. Rousseau’s view toward virtue will be discussed in the third chapter of this thesis. The foundation of reconstructing political community by virtue will be found in Rousseau’s theory of social contract and to be proved in Rousseau’s drafting the manuscript of constitution reform policy for other states. Social contract reveals the stereotype of ideal political community, however, the binding and the maintaining of social contract depends on an outstanding legislator. On the one hand, he transforms and eliminates the various factors of corruption formation. On the other hand, he creates the various environment of virtue cultivation, enforcing the “Republic of virtue” to be realized. Not every thinker’s way of thinking toward corruption is the same with Rousseau. Montesquieu’s and Constant’s thinking are different from Rousseau. The last part of this thesis will discuss the differences among them.