The compatibility between Joseph Chan's moderate perfectionism and John Rawls’ justice as fairness from Steven Wall's view of aristotelian principle

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2024.e90138

Keywords:

Theory of Justice, Political Liberalism, Perfectionism

Abstract

The article discusses the relationship between the intuitionist/Aristotelian perfectionism analyzed and rejected by John Rawls and the moderate perfectionism proposed by Joseph Chan, sustaining, from the interpretation given by Steven Wall of the Rawlsian Aristotelian principle, that such moderate perfectionism is a configuration of Intuitionist/Aristotelian perfectionism, which, in addition to not being rejected in terms of the arguments of Rawls' Theory of Justice, would be fully compatible with its justice as fairness.

Author Biographies

Ricardo Corrêa de Araujo, PPGFIL - UFES - Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo. Vitória/ES.

Possui graduação em Filosofia pela Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (1997), mestrado em Filosofia pela Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (2000) e doutorado em Filosofia pela Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (2004). Tem experiência na área de Filosofia, com ênfase em Filosofia política contemporânea, interessando-se principalmente pelas relações entre Filosofia, democracia e justiça. Membro do Departamento de Filosofia e do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia - PPGFIL/UFES.

Alceu Maurício Júnior, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo - PPGFIL

Doutor em Direito e Doutorando em Filosofia no PPGFIL/UFES.

Carolina Matedi Barreira, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo - PPGFIL

Doutoranda em Filosofia do PPGFIL/UFES.

References

ARAUJO, R. C.; MAURICIO JUNIOR, A.. O perfeccionismo político como possível concretização do fato da maioria: uma alternativa em direção às sociedades bem-ordenadas. Novos Estudos: CEBRAP, V. 41, No. 3 (2022), pp. 527–543.

CHAN, Joseph. Sectarianism Without Perfection? Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series), Vol. 2, No. 1 (2012), pp. 7-15.

GAUS, Gerald. Liberal Neutrality and Moderate Perfectionism. Res Publica, 19 (2013), pp. 297-315.

MANG, F. . Liberal Neutrality and Moderate Perfectionism. Res Publica, 19 (2013), pp. 297-315.

MULHALL, Stephen; SWIFT, Adam. Liberals & Communitarians. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1996.

NAGEL. T. Equality and Partiality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

QUONG, Jonathan. Liberalism Without Perfection. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

QUONG, Jonathan. Liberalism Without Perfection: Replies to Gaus, Colburn, Chan and Bocchiola. Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series), Vol. 2, No. 1 (2012), pp. 51-79.

RAWLS, John. A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999.

RAWLS, John. Uma teoria da justiça. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2000.

RAWLS, John. Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.

RAWLS, John. O liberalismo político. São Paulo: Editora WMF Martins Fontes, 2011.

RAZ, J. A moralidade da liberdade. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2011.

TAHZIB, Collis. Perfectionism: Political not Metaphysical. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 47, no. 2, pp. 144-178.

WALL, Steven. Liberalism, perfectionism and restraint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

WALL, Steven. Rawlsian Perfectionism. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 10 (2013), pp. 573-597.

WALL, Steven. Perfectionist Justice and Rawlsian Legitimacy. In: MANDLE, Jon; REIDY, David A. (Eds). A companion to Rawls. West Sussex: Willey Blackwell, 2014.

Downloads

Published

2024-11-12

Issue

Vol. 23 No. 1 (2024): V. 23. N. 1

Section

Articles - Continuous Flow

License

 

Authors retain copyright and publication rights over their works, without restrictions.

Upon submitting their work, authors grant ethic@ the exclusive right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International License. This license allows third parties to remix, adapt, and build upon the published work, provided that proper credit is given to the authorship and to the original publication in this journal.

Authors are also permitted to enter into additional contracts, separately, for the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work in this journal (for example: deposit in an institutional repository, make it available on a personal website, publish translations, or include it as a book chapter), provided that authorship and the initial publication in ethic@ are acknowledged.