Suchergebnisse

Despite an impressive philosophical pedigree, contractualism (or contractarianism) has only been properly developed in two ways: by appeal to the idea of an instrumentally rational bargain or contract between self-interested individuals (Hobbesian contractualism) and by appeal to the idea of a substantively reasonable agreement among individuals who regard one another as free and equal persons warranting equal moral respect (Kantian contractualism). Both of these existing models of contractualism are susceptible to apparently devastating objections. In this article, I outline a third, `deliberative' model of contractualism, which is based on the idea of a deliberatively rational agreement and which, I argue, represents a significant improvement on the Hobbesian and Kantian models in certain important respects.

Can contractualism yield a suitably egalitarian conception of social justice? G.A. Cohen has forcefully argued that it cannot - that one cannot be both a contractualist and an egalitarian. Cohen presents a number of arguments to this effect, the particular target of which is John Rawls's version of contractualism. In this article, I show that, contra Cohen, the Rawlsian model of contractualism, and the ideal of reciprocity on which it relies, can coherently yield egalitarian principles of distributive justice such as the difference principle. I also defend Rawls from the further claim, pressed by Cohen and others, that relying on the idea of mutual or reciprocal advantage will leave the infirm or severely handicapped outside the scope of egalitarian justice. I argue that Rawlsians can account for the claims that the infirm or severely handicapped have on others in terms of a natural duty to aid.

Autor nastoji da pokaže da je uobičajena podela na 'hobsovsku' i 'kantovsku' liniju mišljenja u sklopu savremene recepcije tradicije društvenog ugovora potpuno opravdana. U tekstu se takođe naglašava kako se ideja društvenog kao 'moralnog' ugovora, nasuprot izvornijem 'političkom' ugovoru, artikuliše tek u poznoj 'evolucionoj' fazi te ideje, naročito u dvadesetom veku (pre svega u teorijama Dejvida Gotijea i Tomasa Skenlona). Najposle, odbacuje se pokušaj redefinisanja kontraktualizma kao neke vrste 'konstruktivizma', budući da u kontraktualizmu nema nikakvih elemenata 'proceduralnog' rasuđivanja koje je, prema opštem uverenju, karakteristično za 'konstruktivističku' misao. ; The author insists that, within contemporary theory, common division of social contract tradition on 'Hobbesian' and 'Kantian' line of thought is entirely justified. Analyzing the theories of David Gauthier and Thomas Scanlon, he also indicates the important difference between 'moral' and 'political' dimension of the idea of social contract. Finally, he rejects recent attempts of identifying contractualism with constructivism.

Southwood assesses contractualism as an account of the foundations or ultimate grounds of morality. While sceptical about how contractualism has typically been developed, he proposes a novel 'deliberative' version of contractualism, which he argues has the resources to offer an account of morality's foundations

Philosophical and ethical controversies of contractualism are analyzed in the article. Revitalization of modern ethical discourse based on social agreement connected with J. Rawls whose "theory of justice" is interpreted in the light of philosophical and legal legitimization of sociodemocratic practices of "a state of general prosperity". Criticism of this theory presented in the works of R. Nozick and R. Dworkin is highlighted. There the first one rejects morality of state redistribution of "justly" acquired property, the second considers moral bases of socio-regulated governed influence based on "natural law" argumentation. The analysis of discrepancies between the approaches of J. Rawls and R. Dworkin has demonstrated the difficulties of neo-liberal attempts to prove moral bases of a modern state: problem statement in the individualistic way does not consider dynamic character of human socialization and neglects an issue regarding a moral status of marginalized populations. Criticism of neo-liberal controversies of contractualism performed by J. Habermas, is analyzed. Communicative approach to dichotomy withdrawal of liberal freedom ("rights of the new") and ideas of public autonomy ("rights of the old") is revealed. The study concludes that Habermas's "involvement of the Other" is to meet all practical challenges of the modern society, it evokes a consideration of the main approach of moral bases definition of a legal, democratic, and social state. Ethical discourse content is proved to be an embodiment of a process of self-awareness created by civil society that is a special form of existence and development of social subjectivity ; Politologijos katedra ; Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas