Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (4)
- Portuguese (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- Justice (7) (remove)
Axel Honneth desenvolve o conceito de reconhecimento, encarado como uma necessidade fundamental do ser-humano, de forma a constituir-se no núcleo de uma teoria da justiça que procura especificar as condições intersubjetivas de autorrealização individual. Apresenta-se uma teoria da justiça assente na reconstrução das práticas e condições de reconhecimento já institucionalizadas, analisando as instituições sociais em um sentido amplo. Pretende-se aproximar a concepção normativa da justiça da análise sociológica das sociedades modernas, através da reconstrução normativa e ao colocar a ênfase na liberdade social, baseada na dimensão intersubjetiva das instituições de reconhecimento. A liberdade social prevê o acesso às instituições de reconhecimento. Um dos objetivos é esboçar os problemas desse avanço interpretativo da teoria crítica do reconhecimento, pelo que iremos convocar a teoria da luta pelo reconhecimento de Honneth, incluir a sua reactualização mais recente do Direito de Hegel e explorar a sua proposta normativa para as condições de uma vida ética.
O presente estudo visa mostrar como Honneth repensa os conceitos de justiça e autonomia a partir de sua teoria das condições intersubjetivas de reconhecimento. Sua tese afirma que só é possível um aumento na autonomia pessoal através do progresso moral nas estruturas sociais de reconhecimento. Veremos que a proposta de Honneth, apesar de inovadora, traz alguns problemas para sua aplicação na esfera política; mesmo assim, é uma proposta forte e indaga-nos especialmente sobre a forma como nossa autonomia é construída socialmente.
Este texto tem como propósito analisar a construção crítica teórica de Axel Honneth das instituições sociais como efetivação da liberdade social que oferece condições para a autorrealização e a justiça. O método do trabalho consiste em se realizar a leitura interna do desenvolvimento na obra do autor à luz de sua consonância com a teoria crítica. Como conclusão discute-se em que medida o progresso moral dessas instituições se relaciona com a efetivação de seu princípio interno, de forma imanente, ou de uma pressão externa normativa da igualdade a partir do direito e da democracia.
Very few people doubt that it is a fundamental demand of justice that members of legal-political normative orders ought to have legal rights that define their basic standing as subjects of such an order. But when it comes to the concrete understanding of such rights, debates abound. What is the nature of these rights – are they an expression of the sovereign will of individuals, or are they based on important human interests? How should these rights be justified – do they have a particular moral ground, and if so, only one or many?
This paper argues that it is necessary to focus on gender rather than exclusively on women in discussions on global poverty eradication. It argues firstly, that the drivers of poverty are complex and multifaceted leading to a least two different forms of deprivation – transitory and structural poverty – each requiring different forms of analysis and treatment. Transitory poverty can arise as a consequence of an event or shock that would diminish an individual’s capacity to retain or secure employment and where a State lacks an appropriate form of social protection. Structural poverty, on the other hand, arises where groups are excluded from the workforce on a more permanent basis due to a wide variety of factors of discrimination such as sex, race, ethnicity, and age. Focusing on the sex of an individual alone cannot explain why some are more likely to experience different forms of poverty than others. Policies that protect women against transitory poverty, such as care related allowances, are not sufficient to eradicate structural poverty. Secondly, structural poverty prompts an examination of gender roles and relations. Unlike the category of ‘women’, the concept of gender demands consideration of a wider range of intersecting factors that influence life chances. The structure of contemporary gender relations, where women continue to experience higher levels of violence, and carry the greatest burden of responsibility for non-market based production activities, create the social conditions where domination and dependence thrive, and where persistently high rates of poverty seem inevitable. Such circumstances are generated by human agency. Thus, thirdly, it argues that these circumstances can and should be changed through human action. Knowledge of these circumstances gives rise to moral obligations for both men and women to avoid upholding values and practices that lead to domination and dependence as a matter of basic justice.
Are Kantian philosophy and its principle of respect for persons inadequate to the protection of environmental values? This paper answers this question by elucidating how Kantian ethics can take environmental values seriously. In the period that starts with the Critique of Judgment in 1790 and ends with the Metaphysics of Morals in 1797, the subject would have been approached by Kant in a different manner; although the respect that we may owe to non-human nature is still grounded in our duties to mankind, the basis for such respect stems from nature’s aesthetic properties, and the duty to preserve nature lies in our duties to ourselves. Compared to the “market paradigm”, as it is called by Gillroy (the reference is to a conception of a public policy based on a criterion of economic efficiency or utility), Kantian philosophy can offer a better explanation of the relationship between environmental policy and the theory of justice. Kantian justice defines the “just state” as the one that protects the moral capacities of its “active” citizens, as presented in the first Part of the Metaphysics of Morals. In the Kantian paradigm, the environmental risk becomes a “public” concern. That means it is not subsumed under an individual decision, based on a calculus.
A discussion regarding the complex relationship that exists between the concepts of efficiency and justice goes a long way back and raises several relevant arguments. One of them, and it must be rejected in advance, is that justice is in the realm of public law, while efficiency in that of private law. Is it unacceptable that the balance between public and private law leads to the belief of a divided legal system; one system, one set of laws, one legal system. Legislators and judges are responsible for determining a balance and no theory can postulate that the balance will always be found with a simple cut between public and private law to distinguish when the criterion should be justice or when it should be efficiency. It is reductionist to confine the discussion to single goals of efficiency and justice, when human dignity and human rights should also be considered when one is discussing law. Moreover, a discussion limited to only the concepts of justice and efficiency, relies on a belief that the terms are mutually exclusive. Posner has said that the economic analysis of law has limits and philosophy of law plays an extremely important role in this discourse, which must be interdisciplinary. There can be no goal other than the realization of human rights and there can be no justice if not shared by all of mankind.