<p>I argue in my dissertation that the Marxist ethical claim against capitalism could be bolstered through: 1) a recognition of the inaccurate human ontology that capitalist theories of entitlement presuppose, 2) a reconceptualization and replacement of that old paradigm of human ontology with a concept that I call “organicism” and 3) a normative argument for why this new paradigm of human ontology necessitates a new political economy and a new way of structuring society. I use the debate between Robert Nozick and G.A. Cohen as a launching point for my case.</p> <p><br></p> <p>In his book, <i>Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality</i>, G.A. Cohen argues that Robert Nozick’s “entitlement theory” is unable to produce the robust sense of freedom that libertarians and capitalist proponents aggrandize. According to Cohen, the reason for this is due to the limitations and consistency errors produced by the libertarian adherence to the “self-ownership principle.” (the moral/natural right that a person is the sole proprietor of their own body and life). Namely, that the pale freedom that the proletariat enjoys within capitalism is inconsistent with the Libertarian’s own standard for freedom. So, Cohen argues for the elimination of the self-ownership principle. My project picks up where Cohen’s leaves off, claiming that the consistency errors don’t lie in entitlement theory’s use of the self-ownership principle (it is important that we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater). Rather, the errors lie in the principle’s metaphysics - specifically in the ontology of the human being. The self-ownership principle is only faulty because it presupposes an impossible self. I show that entitlement theory heedlessly presupposes the self (or a human ontology) as a “rational, autonomous, individual.” I then deconstruct each of these three features (rationality, autonomy, and individuality) to show that this picture of the human being is not necessarily incorrect, but it is incomplete.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Although we are indeed rational, autonomous, individual creatures, these are only emergent characteristics that merely arise after the organic and socially interconnected aspects of our selves are nurtured. I encompass these latter features of our selves under the heading: “organicism”. So, my contribution is to provide a different ontological foundation of the human being – “organicism” – to replace the Enlightenment grown: “rational, autonomous, individual”. I draw heavily from Karl Marx’s philosophical anthropology, and G.W.F. Hegel’s theory of the unfolding of Geist/Spirit, with a little inspiration from Aristotle and ecological theory to construct “organicism” – a pancorporealist, naturalistic materialism. It is the theory that the human being is, in essence, an organic creature, inseparable from nature, but <i>through </i>the nurturing of these material, organic, symbiotic relationships (with other humans and with the ecosystem) that these “super”-natural capacities of rationality and autonomy arise along with and because of a <i>full</i> self-consciousness.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Finally, I infer the normative implications of this ontology of subjectivity. This organicist conception of the self has transformational effects on our notions of property and the way we structure society. So, I contend that organicist ontology then serves as the foundation for a normative theory of political economy that sees the flourishing or health (broadly speaking) of the organicist human as the primary ethical goal. I speculate on an alternative political economy that can provide the robust sense of freedom that Nozick’s entitlement theory (capitalism) was lacking because it actually produces the <i>conditions</i> necessary for rationality, autonomy and individual freedom.</p>

Thèse écrite en cotutelle (Université de Montréal ; Université Paris 1 - Panthéon Sorbonne) / Afin de mieux saisir le rôle de certains phénomènes affectifs au sein des rapports dits de reconnaissance - tels que les émotions de l’estime mais aussi la colère ou le sentiment d’injustice -, ce travail cherche à cerner la nature des actes recognitifs à partir de l’analyse conceptuelle d’énoncés idéal-typiques de reconnaissance. Qu’est-ce que représente un énoncé de reconnaissance ? Que se produit-il lors d’un énoncé de reconnaissance ? Ou, en d’autres termes, que dis-je et que fais-je lorsque j’énonce reconnaître x comme p ? De cette analyse, il ressort que les actes recognitifs correspondent à des actes communicationnels particuliers, en termes habermassiens, des actes régulateurs. Plus spécifiquement, elle permet de mettre en lumière que la reconnaissance fonctionne, au plan normatif, comme un concept régulateur des interactions humaines et, au niveau pratique, qu’elle représente une obligation éthique au sens développé par Hegel dans les Principes de la Philosophie du droit. Comprendre les actes de reconnaissance comme des processus d’attribution de statuts - via l’octroi logiquement antérieur d’une valeur - visant à instaurer un certain type d’interaction entre agents libres présente un double avantage. Le premier, de proposer une unification des différents sens attachés au concept de reconnaissance autour des notions de valeur et de statut. Le second, de permettre des hypothèses explicatives quant à la présence de phénomènes affectifs lors de ces processus. Ces derniers semblent découler, d’une part, du type de processus que sont les actes recognitifs et, d’autre part, de la double fonction que paraissent exercer ces émotions, entendues comme des « perceptions de valeur ». / In order to understand better the role of certain affective phenomena within the so-called relations of recognition - such as the emotions of esteem but also anger or the sense of injustice -, this work seeks to discern the nature of acts of recognition as of the conceptual analysis of the ideal-typical statements. What represents a statement of recognition? What is produced during a statement of recognition? Or, in other words, what do I say and what do I do as I state: “I recognize or acknowledge x as p”? It results from this analysis that the acts of recognition correspond to particular communicational acts, in habermassian terms, of regulatory acts. More specifically, at a normative level, it reveals that, recognition functions as a regulatory concept of human interactions, and at a practical level, it represents an ethical obligation in the sense developed by Hegel in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Understanding the acts of recognition as the process of attribution of status - through a prior logical bestowal of a value - aiming at establishing a certain type of interaction between free agents, features a double advantage. The first is to propose a unification of different meanings attached to the concept of recognition around the notions of value and status. The second is to allow some explicative hypotheses regarding the presence of the affective phenomena during those processes. The latter seem to stem, on the one hand, from a type of process that are acts of recognition, and on the other, from the double function that these emotions seem to be practiced, understood as “perceptions of values”.

The thesis proposes and defends a maxim which can serve as a foundation and guideline for professional ethics in nursing, the maxim that nurses should act so far as possible to promote patient's self-determination. The thesis is informed by philosophical ethics and by knowledge of professional nursing practice.