Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2016-08-22T19:42:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Fabrício José Rodrigues de Lemos_.pdf: 1128559 bytes, checksum: b0f111c3f1defefc8a80daa19003f118 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-22T19:42:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Fabrício José Rodrigues de Lemos_.pdf: 1128559 bytes, checksum: b0f111c3f1defefc8a80daa19003f118 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-30 / Nenhuma / O filósofo norte-americano John Rawls possui o grande mérito de revitalizar as discussões sobre justiça com a publicação de sua obra A theory of justice, de 1971. Nela, lançou base à teoria de justiça como equidade, sendo que, desde então, muito se comentou acerca das responsabilidades morais das entidades e indivíduos no plano doméstico. Em um artigo publicado em 1993 e, em 1999, transformado na obra Law of peoples and the public reason revisited, Rawls ampliou o escopo de suas preocupações e dissertou acerca das responsabilidades dos povos uns para os outros. Nas últimas duas décadas, a teoria de justiça global consolidou-se como um legítimo campo de indagações filosóficas, que visa possibilitar uma melhor compreensão das relações globais e do ambiente globalizado: as profundas modificações oriundas da mudança do paradigma westfaliano em razão da interconectividade e do aumento da complexidade das relações no plano global levaram críticos como Thomas Pogge a se questionar acerca da nova dinâmica mundial. A assunção de responsabilidades, tanto estatais e corporativas quanto as individuais, fazem parte da temática. Nesse sentido, com método de pesquisa eminentemente bibliográfico e documental, partindo da teoria rawlsiana, a dissertação visa demonstrar de que maneira essa mudança de paradigma ocorreu, tendo como referenciais teóricos tanto John Rawls quanto um dos maiores expoentes da teoria de justiça global, o filósofo alemão, atualmente radicado nos Estados Unidos, Thomas Pogge. Assim, a dissertação apresentará as mais recentes formulações teoréticas acerca do que pode ser chamado de justiça global e investigará as críticas e os avanços da obra de Pogge em relação ao pensamento de Rawls. / The American philosopher John Rawls has the great merit of revitalizing justice discussions with the publication of his 1971 work A theory of justice. In it, he gave base to theory of justice as fairness, and, since then, much was said about the moral responsibilities of organizations and individuals in domestic field. In an article published in 1993 and, in 1999, transformed in the work Law of peoples and the public reason revisited, Rawls expanded the scope of his concerns and lectured about the responsibilities of peoples to each other. In the last two decades, the global justice theory has established itself as a legitimate field of philosophical inquiry, which aims to enable a better understanding of global relations and the global environment: the profound changes arising from the change of the westphalian paradigm due to the interconnectivity and the increasing complexity of relationships globally, led critics like Thomas Pogge to wonder about the new world dynamics. The intake of responsibilities, both state and corporate, as well of the individual, are all part of the theme. In this sense, with the research method of eminently bibliographic research and documental, from the starting point of Rawlsian theory, the dissertation aims to demonstrate how this paradigm shift occurred, with the theoretical references of both John Rawls as of one of the greatest exponents of the global justice theory, the German philosopher, currently living in the United States, Thomas Pogge. Thus, the dissertation will present the latest theoretical formulations on what can be called global justice and will investigate the critiques and advances of Pogge's work in relation to Rawls‟s thinking.

我國行政機關工程獎金制度肇始於民國60年間，時值政府積極推動經濟計畫，籌建各項重要基礎工程建設，為鼓勵各機關辦理各項建設工程，提高工作效能，發展工程技術，行政院爰函頒相關工程獎金支給規定據以實施。嗣因時空環境變遷及政府待遇政策轉型，時至今日，現存的工程獎金支給規定，包括「中央政府各工程機關員工工程獎金發給要點」、「中央各級行政機關工程獎金支給原則」及「地方各級行政機關工程獎金支給原則」等3項規定，此外，配合機關組織調整實際需要，另發展出「經濟部水利署及內政部營建署城鄉發展分署之工程獎金支給模式」，共計4套支給規定。 鑒於「平等」、「正義」為世人論事用法之基本原則，亦係檢驗社會制度良善與否之首要價值，因此，公部門待遇之規劃與給與自應符合是項原則與價值體系，惟現行工程獎金制度存有4套支給規定，於適用對象、獎金發給種類、經費提撥方式等相關規定均有所差異，造成相同層級並從事相同工程業務者，卻支領不同額度之工程獎金，不僅引發各機關之質疑與批評，亦有違公平正義原則。 本研究採用文獻分析法及深度訪談法，以羅爾斯的正義論為立基及思考角度，檢視現行工程獎金制度之規劃與給與是否符合正義原則，並輔以嫻熟工程獎金制度實務運作之中央及地方機關之政策利害關係人，以及法制主管機關行政院人事行政總處之業管科長，進行深度訪談及綜合分析，進而分別從法制面及實務面提出研究發現與建議，以期提供政府檢討、評估與修正工程獎金制度缺失及規劃其他各項獎金制度之參考。 / The engineering bonus system for the administrative agencies in Taiwan started from 1970s, when the government was actively involved in the promotion of economic plans and the construction of major infrastructures. In order to encourage the government agencies to undertake various engineering projects, increasing efficiency at work and developing engineering techniques, the Executive Yuan issued relevant engineering bonus systems so that each government agency has a practical stipulation to abide by. Due to the temporal and spatial vicissitudes and the transformation of policies on government compensation, we have currently enforced three engineering bonus systems, including “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in each Construction Agency of Central Government”, “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in Central Government Agencies” and “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in local Government Agencies”. Moreover, in compatibility with the demand for the actual adjustment of government agencies, we also contrived the fourth engineering bonus system, “Modes of Engineering Bonus System for Water Resource Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs, and Urban and Rural Development Branch, Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior.” In light of equality and justice, considered not only the basic standards the public rely on while negotiating and dealing with matters but also the primary values to examine whether the social systems are conducive or not, thus, the planning of the government compensation should correspond to these standards and value systems. However, the current four engineering bonus systems vary in their targets, bonus types, and allotments, leading to a plight where there emerges to be a disparity of bonus pay among dealers at the same level engaging in the same engineering projects, which causes doubts and criticisms among government agencies, and violates the principles of equality and justice as well. Adopting citation analysis and depth interview and basing itself on John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, this research inspects whether the planning and implementation of the current engineering bonus system corresponds to justice principle. Moreover, it is also coupled with meta-analysis and in-depth interviews with policy stakeholders in local and central organizations who are familiar with the functioning of the engineering bonus system and the section chief of the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration. Then, research findings and suggestions will be proposed from a legal and practical perspectives in the hope of providing our government with the review, assessment and correction of drawbacks of the current engineering bonus systems and planning other bonus systems for reference.

This dissertation evaluates the recent academic consensus on liberal multiculturalism. I argue that this apparent consensus, by subsuming religious experience under the general category of culture, has rested upon undefended and contestable conceptions of modern religious life. In the liberal multicultural literature, cultures are primarily identified as sharing certain ethnic, linguistic, or geographic attributes, which is to say morally arbitrary particulars that can be defended without raising the possibility of conflict over metaphysical beliefs. In such theories, the possibility of conflict due to diverse religious principles or claims to the transcendent is either steadfastly ignored or, more typically, explained away as the expression of perverted religious faith. I argue that this conception of the relation between culture and religion fails to provide an account of liberal multiculturalism that is persuasive to religious believers on their own terms. To illustrate this failing, I begin with an examination of the Canadian policy of official multiculturalism and the constitutional design of Pierre Trudeau. I argue that the resistance of Québécois nationalists to liberal multiculturalism, as well as the conflict between the Québécois and minority religious groups within Quebec, has been animated by religious and quasi-religious claims to the transcendent. I maintain that to truly confront this basic problem of religious difference, one must articulate and defend the substantive visions of religious life that are implicit in liberal multicultural theory. To this end, I contrast the portrait of religious life and secularization that is implicit in Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of minority rights with the recent account of modern religious life presented by Charles Taylor. I conclude by suggesting that Kymlicka’s and Taylor’s contrasting conceptions of religious difference—which are fundamentally at odds regarding the relation of the right to the good, and the diversity and nature of genuine religious belief—underline the extent to which liberal multicultural theory has reached an academic consensus only by ignoring the reality of religious diversity. / text

Ce mémoire traite de la critique communautarienne du libéralisme et se donne deux projets. D’abord, il s’agit de formuler une position de synthèse à partir des travaux des philosophes Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre et Michael Walzer. Cette synthèse s’articule autour de trois axes, soit ontologique, sociale et méthodologique. Le deuxième projet est d’évaluer cette position pour statuer sur son rapport au libéralisme, et, plus précisément, pour déterminer si elle est seulement une critique, une alternative, ou encore une variante à l’intérieur du libéralisme. Il est conclu que le communautarisme est réconciliable avec une certaine forme de libéralisme et que sa critique permet même de l’améliorer. / In this essay about the communitarian critique of liberalism I seek to reach two goals. First, it is to form a synthesis from the works of philosophers Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, Alasdair MacIntyre and Michael Walzer. This synthesis is articulated through three axes: ontologicial, social and methodological. Building on this, my second objective is to assess its relation to liberalism. More specifically, I seek to determine whether communitarianism is merely a critique, an alternative or a variant of liberalism. My conclusion is that communitarianism is reconciliable with a certain form of liberalism and that its critique allows to improve it.

In this essay, I aim to elucidate a concept of public justification. I outline several challenges faced by political philosophers, including a desire to secure stability and treat people respectfully against a background of reasonable pluralism. I suggest that John Rawls‟ account of public reason provides a helpful starting point for accomplishing these goals. But critics have been both persistent and persuasive in their objections to public reason‟s central element of reasons all can accept. I explicate three dominant criticisms: incomprehensibility, attenuation and exclusion. First, some critics have argued that the very idea of reasons all can accept cannot be plausibly articulated. Second, critics maintain that the set of reasons all can accept is insufficiently robust to solve constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice. Third, critics note that if public justification is constrained by reasons all can accept, then many informative and effective arguments must be excluded from the public sphere. In response to these criticisms, I argue for an interpretation of reasons all can accept which is sensitive to critics‟ reasonable demand for an explicit account of each element of the doctrine. My interpretation demonstrates the superfluity of what I call the sharability constraint—the thesis that only reasons acceptable to all can function as justifications in the public sphere. Once the sharability constraint is rejected, I argue that the problem of exclusion dissipates, but that substantive restrictions on acceptable reasons are still possible. I am optimistic that this approach is less attenuating than one constrained by sharability and that, at least under favourable empirical conditions, more problems can be resolved by this approach than by standard Rawlsian theory. I draw on actual convergence in the international realm to bolster this optimism. Finally, I relate this approach to the widespread influence of deliberative democracy. I argue that procedural apparatuses are insufficient for political legitimacy, but that deliberation may be an invaluable tool for uncovering reasons required by substantive justification. / Graduate

This paper aims at analyzing the social and economic responsibility of today's business community as an institution responsible for fostering and providing the state with the minimum resources necessary for the realization of fundamental rights in a social democratic bourgeois state responsible for a set of benefits Social relations established by the 1988 Constitution with the aim of providing a dignified life for all. For this purpose, we sought to discuss the concept of corporate social and economic responsibility based on the concept of distributive justice of John Rawls, the theoretical framework of the present study. This work is justified by the need to discuss how the compulsory social function of ownership of free enterprise and competition occurs as a way of preserving the dignity of the human person in a context where it is not accepted that the business society simply aims at profit, Because from the point of view of social responsibility, the company assumes a range of responsibilities that goes far beyond simply generating wealth for the investor and the simple duty to pay taxes. Therefore, in the first chapter we present some concepts that will contribute to the understanding of the meaning of the responsibility of the business society and its social and economic aspects in a capitalist system of liberal perspective, but with state interventionism in the economic domain. In the second chapter, we try to present different concepts of justice and how they are taken up and expanded by values that particularize each time and place. This resumption is made to situate the theory of distributive justice developed by John Rawls and his frame of references. And finally, in the third chapter, we try to make approximations of how corporate responsibilities are shaped in the perspective of Rawlsian justice, especially with respect to the possibility of demanding an action of the corporate societies within an ethical framework of a well-ordered society Which assures the State to develop various social arrangements in favor of the less favored, and it is not reasonable to require more coercively social and economic responsibility of the companies, besides what they deliberately resolve to contribute. / O presente trabalho objetiva analisar a responsabilidade social e econômica da sociedade empresária na atualidade, como instituição responsável por fomentar e prover o Estado de recursos mínimos necessários à concretização dos direitos fundamentais em um Estado Democrático de Direito de viés social, responsável por um elenco de prestações sociais normatizadas pela Constituição de 1988 com o fito de proporcionar uma vida digna a todas às pessoas. Para tal fim, buscou-se discutir o conceito de responsabilidade social e econômica empresária a partir do conceito de justiça distributiva de John Rawls, marco teórico do presente estudo. Este trabalho se justifica pela necessidade de se debater como a obrigatoriedade da função social da propriedade de livre iniciativa e concorrência ocorre como forma de preservar a dignidade da pessoa humana, em um contexto em que não se admite que a sociedade empresária vise simplesmente o lucro, porque do ponto de vista da responsabilidade social, a empresa assume uma gama de responsabilidades que perpassa, em muito, tão somente gerar riqueza ao investidor e o simples dever de pagar impostos. Assim, no primeiro capítulo apresentamos alguns conceitos que vão contribuir para a compreensão do significado da responsabilidade da sociedade empresária e dos seus aspectos social e econômico em um sistema capitalista de perspectiva liberal, mas com intervencionismo estatal no domínio econômico. No segundo capítulo, procuramos apresentar diferentes conceitos de justiça e como eles se retomam e se ampliam em razão de valores que particularizam cada tempo e lugar. Esta retomada é feita para situar a teoria de justiça distributiva desenvolvida por John Rawls e o seu quadro de referências. E por fim, no terceiro capítulo, procuramos fazer aproximações de como se amolda as responsabilidades empresariais na perspectiva de justiça rawlsiana, especialmente no que diz respeito à possibilidade de se exigir uma atuação das sociedades empresárias dentro de um quadro ético de uma sociedade bem-ordenada que assegure ao Estado desenvolver diversos arranjos sociais em favor dos menos favorecidos, não sendo razoável exigir coercitivamente mais responsabilidade social e econômica das empresas, além do que elas deliberadamente resolvem contribuir. / São Cristóvão, SE

There is circumstantial and scientific evidence of nepotism in Europe and USA, and among politicians, judges and other elites. Despite this, an access to positions of power in a liberal democracy is restricted in the sense that occupational following in the offices is subject to public scrutiny. There is a conflict between a personal obligation to promote one's kin and a public obligation to promote liberty. This public duty emerges from a duty to allow access to offices of power to those who have the misfortune of not being born as dynastic followers. It is based on John Rawls's original position which is a thought experiment establishing an impartial environment to detect chief principles adjudicating conflicts of moral doctrines, fairly. In it, the condition of impartiality is achieved by means which are found in this dissertation to be excessive. Its blanked ban on biases immolates even those biases which contribute to fairness, despite their partiality. When nepotism is partly considered an expression of altruism, it shows a capacity to increase cohesion, impede free-driving and improve economy. In order to preserve these virtues, an improved condition of impartiality is offered to enhance Rawls's theory and to classify instances of nepotism according to their effects on improving or hampering...

No description available.

No description available.

ジョン・ロールズの「公正としての正義」は、どのような内実をもつ規範であれ、公正な正当化の条件のもとで合意された規範を公正という意味で正しいとみなす正義の形式的・手続き的構想である。この構想においては、自分の判断を理由に自由に行為する「理性的人格」の観念、自分の判断のもとで理由を構築する理性的人格の「理由の道徳的権利」、そして自分の判断を理由に行為する「自由の道徳的権利」が想定されている。本論文は、これら二つの道徳的権利の尊重という理性的に拒否され得ない義務のもとでロールズの正義の理論を道徳性の形式的・手続き的なカント的理論として再構成し、それを理性的人格の道徳的アイデンティティに根拠づけた。 / John Rawls' "justice as fairness" is the formal or procedural conception of justice that recognizes only norms that could be agreed under fair conditions are just in the sense that they are fair, whatever contents they might have. In this conception, the idea of a reasonable person, the moral right of reasonable persons to construct reasons, and the moral right to act in freedom on these reasons are presumed. I have critically reconstructed Rawls' theory of justice as a formal or procedural Kantian theory of morality on the basis of reasonably unrejectable duty to respect these two moral rights, and grounded it upon the moral identity of reasonable persons. / 博士(哲学) / Doctor of Philosophy / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University