A Defense of Nonideal Theories of Justice / Uma Defesa de Teorias de Justiça Não Ideais
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17808/des.47.599Palavras-chave:
Theories of Justice, Nonideal Theories, Empirical Evidence, MethodologyResumo
Abstract: The overwhelming majority of contemporary theories of justice is grounded in the rationalist tradition (Frazer, 2010). As a consequence, political philosophers such as John Rawls (1971) have interpreted moral systems as axiomatic, substantially based on concepts of inalienable rights and duties—usually guided by the core value attached to human dignity. Once ethicists started working under an axiomatic framework, empirical evidence has become less and less useful. This road has been conducive to the current prevalence of ideal theories in the field. On a dissonant note, recent debate in political philosophy has rekindled our attention to the development of nonideal theories of justice. Yet before one argues in favor of nonideal (or comparative) theories of justice, one has to be certain that all arguments against the broader incorporation of empirical evidence in the development of political philosophical theories are not valid. Therefore the focus of the present paper is the assessment—and dismissal—of these arguments.
Keywords: Theories of Justice; Nonideal Theories; Empirical Evidence; Methodology
Resumo: A grande maioria das teorias de justiça contemporâneas se baseiam na tradição racionalista (Frazer, 2010). Como consequência, filósofos políticos como John Rawls (1971) têm interpretado sistemas morais como axiomáticos, baseados substancialmente em conceitos de direitos e deveres inalienáveis - geralmente guiados pelo valor central concedido à dignidade humana. Uma vez que os eticistas começaram a utilizar uma moldura axiomática, as evidências empíricas se tornaram cada vez menos úteis. Esse caminho foi relevante para a atual prevalência de teorias ideais nesse campo. De maneira dissonante, o debate recente na filosofia política reacendeu a atenção para o desenvolvimento de teorias de justiça não ideais. Contudo, antes que alguém argumente em favor de teorias de justiça não ideais (ou comparativas), é preciso estar certo de que todos os argumentos contrários a uma incorporação mais ampla de evidências empíricas no desenvolvimento de teorias políticas filosóficas não são válidos. Portanto, o foco deste artigo é a avaliação - e rejeição - destes argumentos.
Palavras-chave: Teorias de justiça; Teorias não ideais; Evidência empírica; Metodologia.
Referências
ALESINA, A. & ANGELETOS, G.M. Fairness and Redistribution: US versus Europe. In: Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers, Harvard Institute of Economic Research, 2002.
________. Fairness and Redistribution. In: American Economic Review, vol. 95(4), 2005.
ALESINA, A. & GIULIANO, P. Preferences for Redistribution, NBER Working Papers 14825, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009.
AMIE, Y. & COWELL, F. A. Thinking about Inequality. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
FELTZ, A. & COKELY, E. The Philosophical Personality Argument. In: Philosophical Studies, 161, pp. 227-246, 2012.
FRAZER, M. The Enlightenment of Sympathy: Justice and the Moral Sentiments in the Eighteenth Century and Today. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
FROHLICH, N., OPPENHEIMER, J. A. & EAVEY, C. Choices of principles of distributive justice in experimental groups. In: American Journal of Political Science 31, pp. 606-636, 1987.
FROHLICH, N. & OPPENHEIMER, J. A.. Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory, 1992.
FROHLICH, N., & OPPENHEIMER, J. A. Experiencing Impartiality to Invoke Fairness in the n-PD: Some Experimental Results. In: Public Choice, 86, pp. 117-135, 1996.
GAERTNER & SCHOKKAERT. Empirical Social Choice: Questionnaire Experimental Studies on Distributive Justice, 2010.
GREENE, J.D., MORELLI, S.A., LOWENBERG, K., NYSTROM, L.E. & COHEN, J.D. Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. In: Cognition, 107, pp. 1.144-1.154, 2008.
GREENE, J.D., NYSTROM, L.E., ENGELL, A.D., DARLEY, J.M. & COHEN, J.D. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. In: Neuron, 44, pp. 389-400, 2004.
GREENE, J. D., SOMMERVILLE, R. B., NYSTROM, L. E., DARLEY, J. M. & COHEN, J. D. AN FMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. In: Science 293, pp. 2105-2108, 2001.
HAIDT, J., KOLLER, S. H. & DIAS, M. G. "Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?" In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(4), pp. 613-628, 1993.
HAIDT, J. "The new synthesis in moral psychology." Science 316, pp. 998-1002, 2007.
________. "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment." In: Psychological Review 108, pp. 814-34, 2001.
________. "The moral emotions." In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
________. & Hersh, M. "Sexual morality: the cultures and emotions of conservatives and liberals." In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, pp. 191-221, 2001.
HUME, DAVID. A Treatise on Human Nature. Eds. David Fate Norton & Mary J. Norton. Oxford Philosophical Texts, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000.
KAHNEMAN, D. & TVERSKY, A. "On the Psychology of Prediction." Psychological Review, 80(4), pp. 237-51, 1973).
________. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk." Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263-291, 1979.
KANT, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Edited by Gregor, M. J. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
MILLER, D. Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.
MOLEWIJK, B., STIGGELBOUT, A. M., OTTEN, W. et al. Empirical Data and Moral Theory: A Plea for Integrated Empirical Ethics. In: Med Health Care Philos, 7, pp. 55-69, 2004.
MOLEWIJK, B. "Integrated empirical ethics: In search for clarifying identities." In: Med Health Care Philos 7, pp. 85-87, 2004.
NAGEL, T. The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
RAWLS, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
ROEMER, J. Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
SCHLEIDGEN et al. Mission: Impossible? On Empirical-Normative Collaboration in Ethical Reasoning." In: Ethic Theory and Moral Practice, 13, pp. 59-71, 2010.
SEN, A. The Idea of Justice. In: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusett, 2009.
SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG, W. "Moral Intuitionism Meets Empirical Psychology". In Terry Horgan & Mark Timmons (Eds.), Metaethics After Moore. Oxford University Press, 2005.
SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG, W., Young, L., & Cushman, F. A. "Moral Intuitions as Heuristics." In J. Doris et al. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology. Oxford University Press, 2010.
UNGER, P. Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
YAARI, M. E. & Bar-Hillel, M. "On dividing justly." Social Choice and Welfare, 1, pp. 1-24, 1984.
WEAVER, G. R. & TREVINO, L. K. "Normative and Empirical Business Ethics: Separation, Marriage of Convenience, or Marriage of Necessity?" Business Ethics Quarterly 4, pp. 129-143, 1994.
WIENS, D. "Prescribing Institutions Without Ideal Theory." In: The Journal of Political Philosophy 20, no. 1, pp. 45-70, 2012.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
A submissão de artigos para publicação na Revista Direito, Estado e Sociedade implica a concordância dos autores com os seguintes termos:
1. O(s) autor(es) autoriza(m) a publicação do texto em número da Revista;
2. O(s) autor(es) asseguram que o texto submetido é original e inédito e que não está em processo de avaliação em outra(s) revista(s);
3. O(s) autor(es) assumem inteira responsabilidade pelas opiniões, ideias e conceitos sustentados nos textos;
4. O(s) autor(es) concedem aos editores o direito de realizar ajustes textuais e de adequação ao padrão de publicação da Revista;
5. Permite-se a reprodução total ou parcial dos trabalhos, desde que explicitamente citada a fonte.
