Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  original position
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The above article illustrates the argument between Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart and the issue of liberty as it was depicted by John Rawls. Rawls in his Theory of Justice claims that justice requires that every person enjoys the greatest possible liberty which is possible to reconcile with the liberty of other people. Following such a principle it may be assumed that liberty can only be limited in the name of the liberty of others. H.L.A. Hart does not share such a standpoint. He points out that liberty can be limited not only because of itself, but also due to some social and economic progress. Moreover Hart claims that the idea of liberty presented by Rawls differs from his point of view concerning the possible limitation of the law of property. In fact Rawls admitted that his deliberations in his subsequent work, namely The Political Liberalism, arise from the critical view of Hart presented in his work Rawls on Liberty and its Priority.
PL
The paper considers a fundamental issue set against the backcloth of John Rawls’s theory of justice, namely the structure of its justification system. The issue is so significant, because justification fulfills a key role in the Rawlsian conception. J. Rawls offers a sophisticated system consisting of different arguments aimed at reaching full justification. In the author’s opinion, there are five elements that relate to each other: 1) original position with the idea of the veil of ignorance, 2) reflective equilibrium, 3) public reason, 4) overlapping consensus, and 5) fundamental constructivist ideas. The five above mentioned arguments seem to be based on four different argumentative strategies: 1) a coherentist strategy – referring to the general and internal coherence of the system; 2) a contractualist strategy – based on the notion of social contract; 3) a pragmatic strategy – referring to the connection with effective social practices; and 4) a constructivist strategy which is founded in the particular view of reasonableness. The justification system evolves from A Theory of Justice to Political Liberalism. However, though the system develops, it is always aimed at the same goal – to gather our considered beliefs and facts about a modern society into a coherent set of judgments which may claim to be valid.
4
72%
PL
Sprawiedliwość nigdy nie była konceptem łatwym i przez wieki nastręczała myślicielom różnorakich problemów. Debatowano o jej znaczeniu, zakresie, poszczególnych teoriach, rozumieniu w kontekście człowieka i budowanych przezeń relacji. Nic zatem dziwnego, że właśnie idea sprawiedliwości stała się jednym z zapalnych punktów sporu między zwolennikami liberalizmu budowanego przez Johna Rawlsa, a komunitarianami, reprezentowanymi przez Michaela Sandela czy Michaela Walzera. Moment jej ustalenia, rozumienie, a także sposób budowania na niej wspólnoty poróżnił obie teorie, otwierając dyskusję nad momentem ustalenia się znaczenia wartości, którą odnajdujemy w dyskursie naukowym i publicznym. Choć między przywołanymi komunitarianami pojawiają się znaczące różnice, to analizując sprawiedliwość, widzą oni konkretne przypadki, wskazują na określone sytuacje, w kontekście których należy ją rozpatrywać. Co najistotniejsze, postrzegają sprawiedliwość jako konkret, którego rozważanie i rozumienie jest powiązane z istnieniem wspólnoty. Sprawiedliwość nie jest abstraktem, przedmiotem swoistych negocjacji. Nie kryje się w hipotetycznych, demaskowanych przez komunitarian momentach „sytuacji pierwotnej” czy w działaniu za „zasłoną niewiedzy”. By jednak wykazać chwiejność owych abstrakcji, teorię Johna Rawlsa należy poddać weryfikacji, posługując się przy tym konkretnymi przykładami, pozwalającymi na zdemaskowane niepewności jego sprawiedliwości oraz niestabilności systemu, jaki miałby być na niej oparty.
EN
Justice has never been an easy concept and for centuries it bother the thinkers with various problems. Historians of idea repeatedly debated about its meaning, scope, specific theories, understanding in the context of human and relations that man’s able to built. That idea of justice has become one of the inflammatory points of dispute between supporters of liberalism, built by John Rawls and the communitarians, represented by Michael Sandel or Michael Walzer. The moment of establishing justice, its understanding, as well as a way to build community quarreled both theories, opened a discussion on the significance of this particular value, which can be found in scientific discourse and in public sphere. Although there are signifi cant differences between communitarians, but analyzing the justice they see specific cases, indicate the specific situations in the context of which it must be considered. Most importantly they perceive justice as concrete, which consideration and understanding is linked with the existence of the community as such. Justice is not an abstract or subject of specific negotiations. Justice is not hidden in a hypothetical moment called „the original position” or behind „the veil of ignorance”. However, to show the instability of these abstractions, we have to say „Check” to the theories of John Rawls, and using concrete examples, that allows unmask the uncertainty of Rawls justice and the instability of the system, which would be based on it.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.