Christopher Hamel

Cet article propose une discussion critique de plusieurs études récentes, en histoire intellectuelle et en histoire de la philosophie, qui portent sur la liberté d’expression. Ainsi examine-t‑il la cohérence des démarches historiques et questionne-t‑il l’ambition commune de contribuer, de façon directe ou indirecte, aux débats contemporains. Il souligne les forces et les faiblesses des approches continuistes et discontinuistes, et met en avant les tentatives d’éclairer de façon non rétrospective la généalogie de ce droit fondamental.

Neste artigo o autor relaciona os pensamentos políticos de Locke e Sidney para defender que Locke não pode ser inserido na tradição republicana da qual os escritos de Sidney fazem parte. Isto porque: 1) inexiste na teoria política lockeana uma visão de que a virtude cívica seja o suporte para instituições livres, tal como existe na referida tradição evocada por Sidney; 2) Locke reconhece o fundamento constitucional da prerrogativa do rei, o que para os republicanos, Sidney entre eles, é incompatível com a liberdade; 3) Locke retrata um povo excessivamente cordato e permissivo com o uso do poder por parte do governante, e também pouco disposto ao exercício do direito de resistência. Diferentemente, Sidney recorre à história para defender que os povos livres revelam as qualidades necessárias para conduzir essa resistência, já que o reconhecimento de que o governo de si mesmo e a resistência à tirania é uma questão de dignidade do homem como ser de liberdade.

Contre l’opposition entre vertu et droit que Pocock a mise au cœur de son modèle de lecture de l’histoire de la pensée politique, cet article avance l’hypothèse qu’il existe une tradition républicaine qui intègre le droit naturel comme pièce essentielle de son dispositif argumentatif. Pocock a interprété les concepts de vertu civique et de droit naturel d’une manière qui ne correspond pas à l’usage qu’en font les auteurs considérés ici . En particulier, c’est parce que le détenteur du droit naturel est conçu davantage comme un sujet moral que comme un centre de désirs qu’il n’y a pas de contradiction entre sa liberté et ses obligations, i.e. sa vertu, de citoyen. De même, c’est parce que la vertu du citoyen se définit moins par la pratique de ses capacités politiques que par l’exercice mesuré de sa liberté qu’il n’est pas contradictoire qu’il revendique un droit naturel à changer de gouvernement et à résister au pouvoir.— Contrary to the now received opposition between virtue and right that lays at the heart of Pocock’s historiographical pattern, this paper suggests that there is a republican tradition which integrates natural right to its argumentative structure. Pocock has construed the concepts of civic virtue and natural right in a way that does not fit the doctrines of the authors here considered . Since the natural right bearer is conceived by those authors more as a moral subject than as a source of desires, he needs to be a virtuous citizen to be free. Likewise, since the citizen’s virtue is not determined by his political capacities but by an exercise of his liberty, it is not absurd that he can claim a natural right to change government and to resist power

This article considers the connection between Milton's republicanism and his use of natural rights language. Based on Milton's understanding of man's dignity, it claims that natural rights and civic virtue are articulated consistently. Inextricably linked to his being created free, the dignity of man is central both in the description of the birth of political society and in the defence of the inalienable right to liberty against tyrannical government. Thus, while not an end in itself, civic virtue nevertheless has an irreducible moral value, for being a virtuous citizen means first of all exercising one's own freedom in a way that complies with the natural dignity of man

It has become a commonplace in neo-republican thinking to claim that if the notion of rights can be allowed a place in republican political theory, it can never achieve the prominence that liberalism allegedly grants it. Philip Pettit’s book, Republicanism, provides several arguments to buttress this thesis. This article aims at examining these arguments in order to show that once properly stated, they must on the contrary be considered as powerful arguments to the effect that republicans take rights very seriously.

Christopher Hamel | : Dans cet article, je tente de montrer que la vertu civique repose sur le souci du bien commun, sans être exclusive des intérêts personnels. À cette fin, j’examine les travaux que Shelley Burtt a consacrés à l’élaboration d’une conception privée de la vertu civique. Burtt juge cette conception privée compatible avec les prémisses réalistes de la citoyenneté contemporaine, car contrairement à la conception publique de la vertu civique héritée des Anciens, la conception privée fonde la vertu civique dans la poursuite des intérêts personnels. Je montre que les reproches que Burtt adresse à la conception publique sont équivoques et que leur clarification ne permet pas de défendre la conception privée de la vertu. Je soutiens ensuite qu’en voulant faire l’économie du souci du bien commun, la conception privée échoue à assurer ce pour quoi elle est conçue : la stabilité des institutions libres. Je montre enfin que dans son explicitation de la conception d’esprit privé, Burtt présuppose en fait l’esprit public qu’elle cherche à écarter. Je conclus que la vertu civique est nécessairement enracinée dans l’esprit public, et propose des éléments définitionnels de la vertu civique dans ses rapports au bien commun et à la satisfaction des intérêts personnels. | : I argue that while civic virtue relies on the concern for the common good, it is not exclusive from self-interests. To do so, I scrutinize Shelley Burtt’s works that elaborate a private conception of civic virtue. She takes it to be compatible with the premises of contemporary citizenship, because unlike the public conception of civic virtue, the private conception grounds civic virtue in the pursuit of self-interest. I show that Burtt’s criticisms to the public conception are equivocal and that their clarification does not stand up for the private conception of civic virtue. I then claim that by trying to do without the concern of the common good, the private conception fails to provide what it is conceived for: the stability of free institutions. Finally, I show that in her own exposition of the case for the private conception, Burtt presupposes indeed the public spirit that she wanted to dismiss. I conclude that civic virtue is necessarily grounded in public spirit and I propose some definitional elements of civic virtue in its connexion with the common good and the satisfaction of self-interests