Should the authorities observe the rules regarding the treatment of enemy combatants, or is it morally justified for the authorities to violate some human rights in order to make everyone safer? Some moral theorists are committed to the claim that using torture for the greater good is not only permissible but also obligatory. One of the key goals of my thesis is to undermine this sort of claim. Contemporary consequentialists, such as Philip Pettit, hold that an agent is always permitted to bring about a certain state of affairs solely on the grounds that the state of affairs is the best state of affairs, impersonally judged. Derek Parfit agrees with Pettit's claim, arguing that a reductionist account of persons offers support for moral theories tha tfail to acknowledge the fact that each person is a separate unit of moral concern. I reject Parfit's assumption that the natural separateness of persons is morally insignificant: if we imagine a species of person that is not naturally separate from each other, it is reasonable to suppose that the moral norms of this different species of person would be drastically different from deeply entrenched human moral norms. I conjecture that the separateness of persons offers a rationale for restrictions against grossly assaulting and killing innocent persons. Samuel Scheffler argues that restrictions are so strong they are paradoxical. I counter this charge by arguing that restrictions need not categorically bar types of actions like killing innocent people, but rather should limit consequentialist justifications for these types of actions. Such a distinction addresses the air of paradox that surrounds restrictions because it allows for the possibility that agent-relative reasons justify why agents may assault or kill when the agent is confronted with a tragic moral dilemma. Agent-relative reasons are relevant to moral justification because human persons value the world around them from the first person point of view. In order for morality to appropriately acknowledge this feature of human persons, it must be permissible for humans to adopt a partial attitude toward their own actions, lives and loved ones.

Should the authorities observe the rules regarding the treatment of enemy combatants, or is it morally justified for the authorities to violate some human rights in order to make everyone safer? Some moral theorists are committed to the claim that using torture for the greater good is not only permissible but also obligatory. One of the key goals of my thesis is to undermine this sort of claim. Contemporary consequentialists, such as Philip Pettit, hold that an agent is always permitted to bring about a certain state of affairs solely on the grounds that the state of affairs is the best state of affairs, impersonally judged. Derek Parfit agrees with Pettit's claim, arguing that a reductionist account of persons offers support for moral theories tha tfail to acknowledge the fact that each person is a separate unit of moral concern. I reject Parfit's assumption that the natural separateness of persons is morally insignificant: if we imagine a species of person that is not naturally separate from each other, it is reasonable to suppose that the moral norms of this different species of person would be drastically different from deeply entrenched human moral norms. I conjecture that the separateness of persons offers a rationale for restrictions against grossly assaulting and killing innocent persons. Samuel Scheffler argues that restrictions are so strong they are paradoxical. I counter this charge by arguing that restrictions need not categorically bar types of actions like killing innocent people, but rather should limit consequentialist justifications for these types of actions. Such a distinction addresses the air of paradox that surrounds restrictions because it allows for the possibility that agent-relative reasons justify why agents may assault or kill when the agent is confronted with a tragic moral dilemma. Agent-relative reasons are relevant to moral justification because human persons value the world around them from the first person point of view. In order for morality to appropriately acknowledge this feature of human persons, it must be permissible for humans to adopt a partial attitude toward their own actions, lives and loved ones.

Should the authorities observe the rules regarding the treatment of enemy combatants, or is it morally justified for the authorities to violate some human rights in order to make everyone safer? Some moral theorists are committed to the claim that using torture for the greater good is not only permissible but also obligatory. One of the key goals of my thesis is to undermine this sort of claim. Contemporary consequentialists, such as Philip Pettit, hold that an agent is always permitted to bring about a certain state of affairs solely on the grounds that the state of affairs is the best state of affairs, impersonally judged. Derek Parfit agrees with Pettit's claim, arguing that a reductionist account of persons offers support for moral theories tha tfail to acknowledge the fact that each person is a separate unit of moral concern. I reject Parfit's assumption that the natural separateness of persons is morally insignificant: if we imagine a species of person that is not naturally separate from each other, it is reasonable to suppose that the moral norms of this different species of person would be drastically different from deeply entrenched human moral norms. I conjecture that the separateness of persons offers a rationale for restrictions against grossly assaulting and killing innocent persons. Samuel Scheffler argues that restrictions are so strong they are paradoxical. I counter this charge by arguing that restrictions need not categorically bar types of actions like killing innocent people, but rather should limit consequentialist justifications for these types of actions. Such a distinction addresses the air of paradox that surrounds restrictions because it allows for the possibility that agent-relative reasons justify why agents may assault or kill when the agent is confronted with a tragic moral dilemma. Agent-relative reasons are relevant to moral justification because human persons value the world around them from the first person point of view. In order for morality to appropriately acknowledge this feature of human persons, it must be permissible for humans to adopt a partial attitude toward their own actions, lives and loved ones. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate

The thesis is a study of relational norms - those norms that regulate how we behave in our valuable relationships. I argue that the presence of relational norms in the law reflects its capacities and limitations as an instrument for the guidance of conduct. I make three arguments in support of this claim. First, I argue that we have norms that are constitutive of our practically significant relationships. Second, I argue that the content and justification of these relationships is not necessarily reflected in their legal forms. Third, I argue that we can have relationships that are justified by their instrumental value. There are three Parts to this thesis, each of which is devoted to one of these claims. Part I discusses relational norms in practical reasoning. I identify relational norms as norms that constitute a relationship of value. I then argue that we can owe obligations to one another in what I call the 'relationship sense'. These obligations are neither necessarily enforceable, nor necessarily correlate with the rights of others. Part II discusses relational norms in law. I consider various constraints on the incorporation of relational norms in law, as well as the various relationships of correlativity that are sometimes said to define private law. I also consider the nature of legal rights to perform certain relational duties. I argue that although the duties are burdensome, these rights promote our interests, or at least are claimed to do so by legal officials. Part III considers the significance of relational norms to the general character of law. First I argue that we can have instrumental relationships - relationships that possess their value in virtue of some end that they serve. I then argue that any authoritative relationship that exists between legal officials and their subjects must be instrumentally justified.

This thesis aims to articulate and defend a version of a 'relational moral theory.' Many philosophers have argued that the non-instrumental value of certain relationships, such as friendship and parenthood, can explain at least some of our moral obligations. A relational moral theory extends this thought by arguing that all, or most, of our moral judgements can be explained by the non-instrumental value of one or more interpersonal relationships. The plausibility of such views depend on the possibility of identifying a relationship that all moral agents share a 'moral relationship'. While the idea of such a relationship has featured in ethical writings as early as the Stoics, few attempts have been made to develop a rigorous and precise understanding of this relationship. This thesis therefore aims to articulate and defend a plausible understanding of the moral relationship, and then to use it as a basis for outlining the structure of a genuinely relational moral theory. It will argue that the moral relationship is best understood as a broad and inclusive relationship shared by all who are vulnerable to a distinct kind of 'second-order evil.' It will then argue that the value of this relationship can provide the basis for a relational form of a contractualist moral theory based on the work of T.M. Scanlon. Understanding the nature of the moral relationship, and the role it plays in such theories, will then be seen as a means of unifying, clarifying, and responding to a number of influential objections against such theories, including objections concerning its capacity to accommodate intuitions concerning cases of aggregation and our obligations to future persons.

Comparative analysis of the role of judges in international judicial bodies Abstract The proximate topic of this thesis are two of the most prominent international judicial bodies: The Court of Justice of the European Union, in the narrow sense of the term, and the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO. The actual interest of the work however lies not in the history, normative underpinnings or operation of these institution per se, but rather in the general insights on judicial partiality, bias and relevant preventive mechanisms which can be gleaned from these two concrete examples. The thesis does initially provide a brief overview of the actual workings of both systems, in order to establish a factual background on which to base its subsequent theoretical analysis. The second segment of the work then predominantly focuses on two phenomena - the distribution of representation in the relevant bodies of the judicial institutions from the perspective of individual member entities of both organizations, and the related issue of partiality of judges and other judicial or quasi-judicial figures in these systems; in particular their propensity towards championing national interest of their home countries, in lieu of a disinterested due performance of their duties. The analysis initially examines the factual state of...

Esta pesquisa procede a uma investigação linguístico-enunciativa sobre o uso do discurso de outrem como marca enunciativa de parcialidade em notas, notícias e reportagens sobre a implantação do sistema de cotas nas universidades públicas brasileiras. O corpus de partida é composto de 212 textos de cunho informativo, veiculados no jornal Folha de S.Paulo Online, no período compreendido entre janeiro de 2001 e setembro de 2005. A análise é balizada na perspectiva teórica enunciativa bakhtiniana, principalmente, no que respeita ao dialogismo e à interação verbal. A hipótese geral é a de que o discurso de outrem tem funcionamento específico na enunciação jornalística, podendo deixar marcas aparentes de parcialidade do locutor. O objetivo principal é mostrar como essa parcialidade é marcada nos textos por meio do uso do discurso citado, diluído em discurso direto e indireto. O percurso metodológico considera uma taxionomia dos textos por abordagem, enfatizando a prevalência dos posicionamentos sobre as cotas nas universidades públicas brasileiras, agrupando-os em três blocos: primeiro, ponto de vista contrário; segundo, ponto de vista favorável e, por fim, pontos de vista favoráveis e contrários às cotas, concomitantemente, no mesmo texto. A análise é feita em dois momentos: o primeiro, em que cada bloco é analisado quanto aos aspectos gerais; o segundo, em que é analisado um texto específico, cujo papel é o de ser representação do bloco ao qual pertence. Para a análise, são levados em conta critérios avaliativos como o uso do discurso citado nos títulos e na estrutura proposicional dos textos, o uso dos verbos dicendi e o uso de aspas. A escolha desse tipo de textos se deu devido ao fato de o discurso citado ser dele um elemento estruturante a partir do que a presença de posições distintas sobre as cotas são manifestadas linguístico-enunciativamente. Os resultados comprovam que o uso do discurso citado/de outrem marca a parcialidade do locutor na arquitetura global do texto informativo. Na elaboração da notícia, o locutor lança mão desse recurso linguístico-discursivo com o propósito de imprimir veracidade ao que é informado e, ao mesmo tempo, de se distanciar do dito alheio. No entanto, essa manipulação dos pontos de vista de outrem não garante a imparcialidade pretendida. Uma das formas de demarcar a parcialidade é justamente o uso das vozes citantes e citadas contingentes no discurso jornalístico. / This research is an linguistic-enunciative investigation on the use of discourse of other as enunciative mark of partiality in notes, news and reports about the implantation of system of quotas in Brazilian Public Universities. The pointing corpus is comprised of 212 informative texts, exhibed by Folha de S. Paulo Online, in the period between January of 2001 and September of 2005. The analysis is based on the bakhtinian enunciative theory perspective, mainly, in respect of the dialogism and the verbal interaction. The general hypothesis is that the discourse of other has a specific operation in the journalistic enunciation, and can let aparent marks of partiality from the locutor. The main objective is to show how this partiality is marked in the texts through the use of reported discourse, diluted in the direct and indirect speech. The methodological path considers a taxonomy of texts by approach, emphasizing the prevalence of positions about the quotas in Brazilian Public Universities, grouping them in three blocks: the first one, opposite point of views, the second one, favourable point of views and, finally, favourable and opposite point of views to quotas both at the same text. The analysis is made in two moments: the first one, in which each block is analysed in relation to general aspects; the second one, in which each specific text is analysed whose role is to be the block‘s representation that it becomes. For the analysis, evaluative criteria are taken into consideration like the use of reported discourse in the titles, in the propositional structure of the texts, the use of dicendi verbs and the use of quotation marks. The choice of this type texts occured due to the fact that the reported discourse be him a structuring element from than the presence of different positions about quotas are expressed linguistic-enunciatively. Results show that the use of reported discourse/other marks the partiality of the locutor in the global architectural of the informative text. In the elaboration of the news, the locutor uses this linguistic-discoursive resource whose aim is to print veracity to the information and, at the same time, to distance the discourse of other. However, this manipulation of other point of views does not guarantee the intended impartiality. One of the ways of demarcating the partiality is just the use of reporting and reported voices contingent in the journalistic discourse.

Esta pesquisa procede a uma investigação linguístico-enunciativa sobre o uso do discurso de outrem como marca enunciativa de parcialidade em notas, notícias e reportagens sobre a implantação do sistema de cotas nas universidades públicas brasileiras. O corpus de partida é composto de 212 textos de cunho informativo, veiculados no jornal Folha de S.Paulo Online, no período compreendido entre janeiro de 2001 e setembro de 2005. A análise é balizada na perspectiva teórica enunciativa bakhtiniana, principalmente, no que respeita ao dialogismo e à interação verbal. A hipótese geral é a de que o discurso de outrem tem funcionamento específico na enunciação jornalística, podendo deixar marcas aparentes de parcialidade do locutor. O objetivo principal é mostrar como essa parcialidade é marcada nos textos por meio do uso do discurso citado, diluído em discurso direto e indireto. O percurso metodológico considera uma taxionomia dos textos por abordagem, enfatizando a prevalência dos posicionamentos sobre as cotas nas universidades públicas brasileiras, agrupando-os em três blocos: primeiro, ponto de vista contrário; segundo, ponto de vista favorável e, por fim, pontos de vista favoráveis e contrários às cotas, concomitantemente, no mesmo texto. A análise é feita em dois momentos: o primeiro, em que cada bloco é analisado quanto aos aspectos gerais; o segundo, em que é analisado um texto específico, cujo papel é o de ser representação do bloco ao qual pertence. Para a análise, são levados em conta critérios avaliativos como o uso do discurso citado nos títulos e na estrutura proposicional dos textos, o uso dos verbos dicendi e o uso de aspas. A escolha desse tipo de textos se deu devido ao fato de o discurso citado ser dele um elemento estruturante a partir do que a presença de posições distintas sobre as cotas são manifestadas linguístico-enunciativamente. Os resultados comprovam que o uso do discurso citado/de outrem marca a parcialidade do locutor na arquitetura global do texto informativo. Na elaboração da notícia, o locutor lança mão desse recurso linguístico-discursivo com o propósito de imprimir veracidade ao que é informado e, ao mesmo tempo, de se distanciar do dito alheio. No entanto, essa manipulação dos pontos de vista de outrem não garante a imparcialidade pretendida. Uma das formas de demarcar a parcialidade é justamente o uso das vozes citantes e citadas contingentes no discurso jornalístico. / This research is an linguistic-enunciative investigation on the use of discourse of other as enunciative mark of partiality in notes, news and reports about the implantation of system of quotas in Brazilian Public Universities. The pointing corpus is comprised of 212 informative texts, exhibed by Folha de S. Paulo Online, in the period between January of 2001 and September of 2005. The analysis is based on the bakhtinian enunciative theory perspective, mainly, in respect of the dialogism and the verbal interaction. The general hypothesis is that the discourse of other has a specific operation in the journalistic enunciation, and can let aparent marks of partiality from the locutor. The main objective is to show how this partiality is marked in the texts through the use of reported discourse, diluted in the direct and indirect speech. The methodological path considers a taxonomy of texts by approach, emphasizing the prevalence of positions about the quotas in Brazilian Public Universities, grouping them in three blocks: the first one, opposite point of views, the second one, favourable point of views and, finally, favourable and opposite point of views to quotas both at the same text. The analysis is made in two moments: the first one, in which each block is analysed in relation to general aspects; the second one, in which each specific text is analysed whose role is to be the block‘s representation that it becomes. For the analysis, evaluative criteria are taken into consideration like the use of reported discourse in the titles, in the propositional structure of the texts, the use of dicendi verbs and the use of quotation marks. The choice of this type texts occured due to the fact that the reported discourse be him a structuring element from than the presence of different positions about quotas are expressed linguistic-enunciatively. Results show that the use of reported discourse/other marks the partiality of the locutor in the global architectural of the informative text. In the elaboration of the news, the locutor uses this linguistic-discoursive resource whose aim is to print veracity to the information and, at the same time, to distance the discourse of other. However, this manipulation of other point of views does not guarantee the intended impartiality. One of the ways of demarcating the partiality is just the use of reporting and reported voices contingent in the journalistic discourse.

Esta pesquisa procede a uma investigação linguístico-enunciativa sobre o uso do discurso de outrem como marca enunciativa de parcialidade em notas, notícias e reportagens sobre a implantação do sistema de cotas nas universidades públicas brasileiras. O corpus de partida é composto de 212 textos de cunho informativo, veiculados no jornal Folha de S.Paulo Online, no período compreendido entre janeiro de 2001 e setembro de 2005. A análise é balizada na perspectiva teórica enunciativa bakhtiniana, principalmente, no que respeita ao dialogismo e à interação verbal. A hipótese geral é a de que o discurso de outrem tem funcionamento específico na enunciação jornalística, podendo deixar marcas aparentes de parcialidade do locutor. O objetivo principal é mostrar como essa parcialidade é marcada nos textos por meio do uso do discurso citado, diluído em discurso direto e indireto. O percurso metodológico considera uma taxionomia dos textos por abordagem, enfatizando a prevalência dos posicionamentos sobre as cotas nas universidades públicas brasileiras, agrupando-os em três blocos: primeiro, ponto de vista contrário; segundo, ponto de vista favorável e, por fim, pontos de vista favoráveis e contrários às cotas, concomitantemente, no mesmo texto. A análise é feita em dois momentos: o primeiro, em que cada bloco é analisado quanto aos aspectos gerais; o segundo, em que é analisado um texto específico, cujo papel é o de ser representação do bloco ao qual pertence. Para a análise, são levados em conta critérios avaliativos como o uso do discurso citado nos títulos e na estrutura proposicional dos textos, o uso dos verbos dicendi e o uso de aspas. A escolha desse tipo de textos se deu devido ao fato de o discurso citado ser dele um elemento estruturante a partir do que a presença de posições distintas sobre as cotas são manifestadas linguístico-enunciativamente. Os resultados comprovam que o uso do discurso citado/de outrem marca a parcialidade do locutor na arquitetura global do texto informativo. Na elaboração da notícia, o locutor lança mão desse recurso linguístico-discursivo com o propósito de imprimir veracidade ao que é informado e, ao mesmo tempo, de se distanciar do dito alheio. No entanto, essa manipulação dos pontos de vista de outrem não garante a imparcialidade pretendida. Uma das formas de demarcar a parcialidade é justamente o uso das vozes citantes e citadas contingentes no discurso jornalístico. / This research is an linguistic-enunciative investigation on the use of discourse of other as enunciative mark of partiality in notes, news and reports about the implantation of system of quotas in Brazilian Public Universities. The pointing corpus is comprised of 212 informative texts, exhibed by Folha de S. Paulo Online, in the period between January of 2001 and September of 2005. The analysis is based on the bakhtinian enunciative theory perspective, mainly, in respect of the dialogism and the verbal interaction. The general hypothesis is that the discourse of other has a specific operation in the journalistic enunciation, and can let aparent marks of partiality from the locutor. The main objective is to show how this partiality is marked in the texts through the use of reported discourse, diluted in the direct and indirect speech. The methodological path considers a taxonomy of texts by approach, emphasizing the prevalence of positions about the quotas in Brazilian Public Universities, grouping them in three blocks: the first one, opposite point of views, the second one, favourable point of views and, finally, favourable and opposite point of views to quotas both at the same text. The analysis is made in two moments: the first one, in which each block is analysed in relation to general aspects; the second one, in which each specific text is analysed whose role is to be the block‘s representation that it becomes. For the analysis, evaluative criteria are taken into consideration like the use of reported discourse in the titles, in the propositional structure of the texts, the use of dicendi verbs and the use of quotation marks. The choice of this type texts occured due to the fact that the reported discourse be him a structuring element from than the presence of different positions about quotas are expressed linguistic-enunciatively. Results show that the use of reported discourse/other marks the partiality of the locutor in the global architectural of the informative text. In the elaboration of the news, the locutor uses this linguistic-discoursive resource whose aim is to print veracity to the information and, at the same time, to distance the discourse of other. However, this manipulation of other point of views does not guarantee the intended impartiality. One of the ways of demarcating the partiality is just the use of reporting and reported voices contingent in the journalistic discourse.

What do we owe to our loved ones? What is the status of these requirements? How do we reconcile them with other requirements? Are we allowed to buy our child an expensive car when that money could save countless strangers overseas? What exactly does morality demand of us? / My thesis defends an account of partiality justified in terms of relationships. I develop the view that relationships are inextricably linked to wellbeing, and I defend the idea that morality must be concerned with our wellbeing. I try to make sense of this account of partiality with the idea that morality carries a requirement of impartiality. If wellbeing is an important part of morally right actions, and if acting in accordance with reasons of partiality (qua relationships) sometimes promotes wellbeing better than impartiality, then some reasons of partiality lead to morally right actions. Minimally, I argue that for why a strictly impartial (or, on the other extreme, a strictly partial) theory does not work. Both reasons (of partiality and impartiality) must be taken into account and carefully calibrated. More ambitiously, I argue for why partiality deserves its own place at the table in normative ethical theorizing. This is not to say that partiality always leads to right action, rather the suggestion is that there are some forms of partiality (found within relationships) which morality requires. / Thesis / Candidate in Philosophy / Some forms of partiality seem clearly wrong, like racial bias or nepotism; in such cases, it is better to consider our reasons to be impartial, which seem to lead to more fairness or equality. Still, there seem to be other forms of partiality which are clearly right, like the love and care a parent has for their child; in these cases, considering our reasons to be impartial seem like (to quote Bernard Williams), “one thought too many.” This thesis tries fit reasons of partiality and reasons of impartiality together, and argues for a view of (moral) partiality grounded in relationships.