Elvio Baccarini

In the article, we consider the objections of the capability approach to Rawls’s theory of public justification. The objection is that Rawls’s theory is considered with an exclusive focus on reason and rationality as essential properties of justice, excluding from the domain of justice people who do not possess these properties (such as people with severe cognitive impairments). We point out the shortcomings of the alternative proposal to the capability theory, which is based on the dignity of the species, because we claim that no valid normative conclusions can be derived from the concept of the species. We conclude by adopting a model of public justification according to which duties and rights are determined by reasonable people (ideal legislators). Reasonable people impartially judge the principles of justice even for those who do not participate in the process of justification but deserve the recognition of rights by universalizing these rights. Through universalization, they justified these rights for themselves and for those they represented by presenting adequate representatives in the process of justifying the principles of justice for those who do not have the capability to be reasonable and rational.

Ovaj je zbornik nastao kao rezultat istraživanja provedenog unutar istoimenoga znanstveno-istraživačkoga projekta na kojemu su urednici istovremeno bili i glavni istraživači, a ostali autori članovi istraživačke skupine. Kao svjedoci različitih vrsta otklona od prevladavajućeg, uobičajenoga, normalnoga, pozitivnog ili ponašanja koje se karakterizira kao asocijalno, zapitali smo se – što postojeće čini normom, treba li odstupanje od norme nužno smatrati devijacijom i kakvi su poželjni društveni odgovori na odstupanja od normi. Često se smatra ispravnim upravo ono što je prevladavajuće, a ono što predstavlja otklon označava se kao devijacija u negativnome značenju onoga što nije ispravno, nije posve ispravno, ili čak onoga što treba sankcionirati. Naš je početni stav bio da ono što prevladava ne smije biti neupitna norma, kao što ni ono što je otklon nije po automatizmu devijacija. Međutim, ne smatramo ni da prevladavajuću normu, samom tom činjenicom što je prevladavajuća, nužno treba kritizirati te da je svaki otklon po sebi poželjan. Cilj našeg istraživanja bio je istražiti različite oblike deficita i devijacijau u domeni formiranja vjerovanja individualnih, grupnih, kolektivnih i institucijskih epistemičkih aktera (socijalna epistemologija) i u domeni društvenog i institucijskoga djelovanja (filozofija politike i filozofija psihijatrije). Nastavno na to, pokušali smo identificirati vrijednosti postojećih normi, koliko odgovaraju poželjnim vrijednostima te koji su poželjni društveni odgovori na otklone od normi.

We argue that the mandatory moral bioenhancement of psychopaths is justified as a prescription of social morality. Moral bioenhancement is legitimate when it is justified on the basis of the reasons of the recipients. Psychopaths expect and prefer that the agents with whom they interact do not have certain psychopathic traits. Particularly, they have reasons to require the moral bioenhancement of psychopaths with whom they must cooperate. By adopting a public reason and a Kantian argument, we conclude that we can justify to a psychopath being the recipient of mandatory moral bioenhancement because he has a reason to require the application of this prescription to other psychopaths.

L’objet du présent article est le suivant : comment développer une justification publique en matière de justice qui respecte à la fois le pluralisme entre des citoyens libres et égaux, la qualité épistémique des décisions et la responsabilité épistémique? Pour aborder ce problème, j’envisage le modèle de justification publique proposé par John Rawls, en particulier sa conception de la légitimité et de la justification des décisions publiques présentes dans sa théorie de la raison publique. J’insiste sur les éléments épistémiques de la doctrine de Rawls concernant la justification publique, en particulier le rapport à la science dans le cadre de la raison publique. Je propose toutefois d’amender la description rawlsienne des raisons scientifiques publiques afin d’inclure un ensemble de raisons plus ancrées dans les besoins du monde réel, à savoir de considérer la légitimité d’un ensemble de conclusions scientifiques raisonnables, en tant que raisons justificatives publiques valides, sans se limiter à des conclusions hors de toute controverse. J’indique le problème que constitue l’attribution de légitimité au pluralisme raisonnable des raisons scientifiques pour une détermination probante des politiques. Ma solution consiste à considérer comme légitimes — parce que raisonnables — des décisions sélectionnées selon une procédure démocratique équitable.

This paper proposes a novel method for identifying the public evaluative standards that contribute to the classification of certain conditions as mental disabilities. Public evaluative standards could contribute to ascertaining disabilities by outlining characteristics whose presence beyond a threshold is fundamentally important for the life of a person and whose absence or reduced occurrence constitutes a disability. Additionally, they can participate in determining disabilities by delineating particularly grave difficulties, impairments, or incapacities. Our method relies on a model of public justification of evaluative standards that is inspired by Gerald Gaus’s theory of public reason. Thus, our approach recommends the justification of evaluative standards through sound deliberative routes from reasons accessible to all persons who participate in the process of justification and the convergence of what is justified in this way to each of them. We deem that disabilities could be caused both by problems in the internal characteristics of a person as well as by unfairness or a lack of hospitality in external circumstances. This is why the method of justification is applied to the assessment of those circumstances as well. If social or environmental circumstances cannot be justified through the convergence of reasons accessible to all persons involved in the process of justification, we have reasons to exclude the presence of a disability and ascertain the presence of inadequate external conditions.

This paper extends Alan John Simmons?s conceptual distinction between Lockean and Kantian conceptions of legitimacy that he applied to the question of the legitimacy of states, to the issue of legitimacy of public decisions. I criticise the consent conception of legitimacy defended by Simmons, and I defend the Rawlsian version of the justificatory conception of legitimacy from his objection. The approach of this paper is distinctive because the two conceptions are assessed by investigating, using the method of reflective equilibrium, their respective prescriptions concerning the treatment of antisocial personality disorder and epidemiologic measures. I argue that the method of reflective equilibrium does not support the consent conception. Considering the issues of treatment of APD and of epidemiologic measures, I argue that the consent conception of legitimacy is not well-equipped for the evaluation of norms that are not strictly self-regarding. This causes a deficit of prescriptions for relevant social responses. Further, by considering the case of responses to epidemics, I argue that such a conception can avoid harmful consequences only by recurring to additional, and independent, premises. This does not cause incoherence but reduces the coherence of a normative system. Finally, the consent conception is not equipped to support social cooperation in an optimal way, which has proved to be necessary in critical conditions, like a pandemic. On the other hand, I argue that the method of reflective equilibrium supports the Rawlsian version of justificatory conception of legitimacy, because of its advantages in handling the indicated issues. In addition, I maintain that this justificatory conception is respectful of freedom and equality of agents as moral self-legislators, and, thus, it is not vulnerable to Simmons?s main criticism.

Rawlsian public reason requires public decisions to be justified through reasons that each citizen can accept as reasonable, free and equal. It has been objected that this model of public justification puts unfair burdens on marginalized groups. A possible version of the criticism is that the alleged unfairness is constituted by what Miranda Fricker and other authors call epistemic injustice. This form of injustice obtains when some agents are unjustly treated as not reliable, or when they are deprived of epistemic resources to utter their claims or burdened when they need to express demands. I show that the Rawlsian model can stand the objection. Restricting justificatory reasons, at least when basic issues of human rights, liberties and opportunities are at stake, is needed in order to warrant a stable society as a fair system of cooperation among free and equal citizens.

Empirical methods interact with moral philosophy in several ways. In this paper I remark the role of experience, as well as formative experience, in moral epistemology. I defend the thesis that abstract reasoning is not sufficient in morality. Experiences are needed for refined moral judgments. In particular, I focus on experience and formative experience through engagement with artworks. I endorse a form of art cognitivism, the thesis that we can learn through experiences of artworks, but here I remain neutral toward whether the cognitive value of artworks contributes to their artistic value. In my view, learning from artworks is not detached from abstract reasoning, but complementary to it. This is needed in order to reply to an objection directed at art cognitivism, one which appeals to the fact that the properties of artworks can improve our moral cognitive capacities, as well as reduce them. I reply to this objection by saying that although art is one resource of moral learning, it is not the only resource. This is why we must not passively endorse insights that are derived from experiences of artworks. We must critically analyse these by comparing them with other beliefs and experiences. Experiences of artworks are a source of moral learning, but insights that are derived from them must be reflective and critically examined. The model is a kind of reflective equilibrium, where various sources of learning interact and support, as well as check, each other for moral learning.

In the first part of the paper, Gaus’ ground for the ideal of persons as free and equal is described. Doubts are raised about the appropriateness of the use of his account of this ideal as endogenous to our moral practice. Th e worries are related to the use of the concept of having a reason that Gaus makes in his book, as well as to the aptness of his account of our moral practice from the viewpoint of our moral phenomenology. Some doubts are raised in relation to the pertinence of Gaus’ concept of having a reason from the perspective of the motivation of the public reason project. In the second part of the paper, a summary is off ered of Gaus’ model of public justification and some of its consequences are discussed. Th e primary intention here is to show that, contrary to Gaus’ view, egalitarian liberalism, and not classical liberalism, is the most appropriate result of such a model of justification.

Rawls’s theory of justice is capable of providing an important contribution to the question of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). PAS should be guaranteed as a right to make decisions in accordance with the conception of the good the individual formulates as a rational being. This defense is supported, therefore, by a Kantian premise. But it is also possible to oppose this kind of proposal by relying on differentaspects of Kant’s theory, i.e. on some variant of the famous argument against suicide based on the means/end formulation of the categorical imperative. In this paper, I try to show that these attempts are not well founded, and that the Rawlsian appeal to the Kantian tradition divulges better perspectives. I also try to add considerations inspired by contextualist epistemology to the Rawlsian appeal to the burdens ofjudgment.

Auf die bloße Ankündigung der Möglichkeit menschlichen Klonens formulierten die Moralisten kritische Argumente gegen die Zulässigkeit der Einführung dieser Praxis. Ein kritischer Blick auf diese Argumente zeigt jedoch, dass sie nicht wohl fundiert sind, d.h. dass sie nicht als legitime Argumente in der Debatte um das in einem Staat öffentlich zulässige zu verwenden sind, denn sie stützen sich auf falsche Prämissen oder sie sind unvereinbar mit Erlaubnissen im Hinblick auf andere Formen der menschlichen Reproduktion. Jedes Argument zugunsten des Verbotes menschlichen Klonens wird mindestens anhand eines der folgenden Mittel analysiert: Steht es im Einklang mit den Grundprinzipien zeitgenössischer Demokratien ; stützt es sich auf wohl fundierte und weitgehend akzeptierte Ergebnisse wissenschaftlicher Forschungen; ist es kohärent mit den üblichen und allgemein anerkannten moralischen Vorstellungen, die mit anderen Formen menschlicher Reproduktion verbunden sind. Das Hauptargument, das als gute Grundlage zum Verbot menschlichen Klonens angesehen wird, ist die moralische Pflicht, künftigen Personen keinen Schaden zuzufügen. Das Ergebnis des Verwerfens traditioneller moralischer Argumente gegen das menschliche Klonen bedeutet keine allgemeine Rechtfertigung menschlichen Klonens, es zeigt nur, dass neue oder präziser ausgeklügelte Argumente zu erbringen sind, wenn menschliches Klonen verboten werden soll

L’article se penche sur la question de savoir si l’allongement de l’espérance de vie peut faire partie des principes de base de la constitution d’une société bien ordonnée, que ce soit en tant que droit à protéger ou en tant qu’interdit. Plus précisément, si on décide de l’interdire, la question est de savoir s’il existe des fondements sur lesquels puisse s’appuyer une interdiction de recherches scientifiques ou technologiques qui visent à allonger sensiblement l’espérance de vie, dans les institutions législatives fondamentales d’une société, et avec l’idée d’en faire un principe constitutionnel de l’Etat. Il pourrait sembler évident que, si la réponse à cette question n’est pas positive, la liberté de s’engager dans de telles activités en découle. Néanmoins, cela n’est pas vrai. Même s’il n’y a pas de possibilité d’établir une telle interdiction au niveau constitutionnel, il est toujours possible de légiférer à un niveau inférieur. En conséquence se pose un autre problème, celui de savoir si l’on peut inscrire, dans les fondements de la constitution, le droit de développer la recherche, financée par exemple par des fonds privés, et utiliser les ressources technologiques dans le dessein d’allonger sensiblement l’espérance de la vie humaine. Deux types d’arguments sont analysés. L ’un avance que l’allongement de l’espérance de vie est dangereux car il compromet l’essence même de l’humanité. L ’autre estime que l’allongement de l’espérance de vie n’est pas utile car il aurait pour résultat une vie ennuyeuse et monotone

U ovom radu raspravljamo odnos Rawlsovog političkog liberalizma i istine. Budući da je politički liberalizam teorija koja izbjegava sva kontroverzna epistemološka i metafizička pitanja, jednako tako izbjegava i pitanje svoje istinitosti i koncept istine uopće. Usredotočili smo se na tri autora koji tvrde da politički liberalizam ne može izbjeći pitanje istine. Prvi autor je perfekcionist, Joseph Raz, koji pokušava pokazati da je Rawlsova teorija nekoherentna ukoliko se ne bavi pitanjem istinitosti neke moralne doktrine na kojoj mora počivati. Drugi, David Estlund, tvrdi da je teorija filozofski neodrživa ako se ne poziva na istinitost svog fundamentalnog načela. Treći, Joshua Cohen, pokazuje nemogućnost izbjegavanja nekog koncepta istine ako se u političkoj teoriji pozivamo na vjerovanja i opravdanje. Nastojimo dokazati tvrdnju o praktičko-političkoj i filozofskoj ograničenosti njihove kritike Rawlsove teorije. Temeljna intencija članka je opovrgnuti kritike koje se upućuju Rawlsu te time ojačati njegov prijedlog političkog liberalizma. Pri tome nastojimo i nadopuniti nedorečenosti u Rawlsovom prijedlogu te zbog toga nudimo preciznije određenu sliku političkog liberalizma u odnosu na njegovu izvornu.In this paper we discuss the relation between Rawls’ political liberalism and truth. Since political liberalism is a theory that avoids all controversial epistemological and metaphysical questions, it equally avoids the question of its truth and a concept of truth generally. We are focusing on three authors which claim that political liberalism can not avoid the question of truth. First, Joseph Raz, a perfectionist who claims that Rawls’ political theory is incoherent unless it is not concerned with the truth of some moral doctrine on which it must be derived. Second, David Estlund, who claims that Rawls’ theory is philosophically untenable unless it does not consider its fundamental principle as true one. Third, Joshua Cohen, indicates the impossibility of avoiding some concept of truth if political theory is invoking concepts such as beliefs and justification. We are pointing on theirs practical-political and philosophical limited range in criticizing Rawls’ theory. The basic intention of the article is to confute criticisms addressed to Rawls and, in this way, to strengthen his proposal of political liberalism. At the same time, we try to resolve issues deriving from indeterminacies in Rawls’ proposal. For this reason we offer a picture of political liberalism that is more determinate than his original proposal

Tekst se bavi problemom može li produžetak trajanja ljudskog života biti uključen u ustavna temeljna pitanja dobro uređenog društva, bilo kao pravo koje treba biti zaštićeno, ili kao zabrana. Kada govorimo o mogućoj zabrani, pitanje je postoje li razlozi na koje je moguće pozvati se u temeljnim zakonodavnim ustanovama društva, kao osnovu za zabranu istraživanja, ili tehnološke prakse, u cilju značajnog produžetka trajanja ljudskog života. Može se činiti očitim da, ako ne postoji pozitivan odgovor na to pitanje, zabrana ovih aktivnosti slijedi neposredno. Međutim, to nije ispravno. Čak i ako nije moguće uspostaviti zabranu na razini ustavnih temeljnih pitanja, može biti još uvijek moguće odrediti zakone na nižim razinama zakonodavstva. Kao posljedica, pojavljuje se novi problem – možemo li odrediti, među temeljnim ustavnim pitanjima, pravo na razvijanje istraživanja i na korištenje tehnoloških resursa, u cilju značajnog produžetka trajanja ljudskog života. Analiziraju se dvije vrste argumenta. Jedan od njih kaže da je produžetak trajanja ljudskog života štetan, budući da ugrožava ljudsku prirodu, a drugi kaže da produžetak trajanja ljudskog života nije koristan, s obzirom da vodi do besmislenosti i dosade

Dès la simple annonce de la possibilité de cloner des humains, les moralistes ont formulé des argyuments contre l’introduction d’une telle pratique, la jugeant inadmissible. Or, un examen critique de ces arguments montre qu’il ne sont pas bien fondés, c’est-à-dire que, souvent, ils ne sont pas propres à être mis en avant en tant qu’arguments légitimes dans les débats sur ce qui est publiquement admissible, qu’ils reposent sur des prémisses erronées, ou qu’ils ne sont pas cohérents avec l’admissibilité d’autres formes de reproduction humaine. Chacun des arguments en faveur de la proscription du clonage humain est analysé ici sous au moins l’un des aspects suivants : est-il en conformité avec les principes fondamentaux des démocraties modernes , est-il fondé sur les résultats incontestés et communément admis des recherches scientifiques, enfin, est-il cohérent avec l’attitude générale à l’égard d’autres formes de reproduction humaine. L’argument massue en faveur de la proscription du clonage humain est celui qui met en avant le devoir moral qui consiste à ne pas faire de tort à la future personne. Le résultat de cette réfutation des arguments éthiques traditionnels contre le clonage humain ne représentent pour autant pas une justification complète de ce dernier : elle montre tout simplement qu’il faudra trouver des arguments plus concluants si l’on veut faire interdire le clonage humain

Der Artikel beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, ob die Verlängerung der L ebenszeit zu den in der Verfassung einer gut eingerichteten Gesellschaft verankerten Grundfragen gehört, sei es als schutzwürdiges Recht oder aber als Verbot. Der letztere Fall bezieht sich auf die Frage, ob es Umstände gebe, die von gesetzgebenden gesellschaftlichen Grundeinrichtungen ins Feld geführt werden könnten, um ein Verbot von Forschungen oder bestimmten technologischen Praktiken, die das Ziel einer wesentlichen L ebenszeitverlängerung verfolgen, durchzusetzen. Es mag als offenkundig erscheinen, dass entsprechende Verbote auf unmittelbarem Wege bewirkt werden, wenn eine positive Antwort auf die gestellte Frage ausbleibt. Dies ist jedoch nicht der Fall. Selbst wenn auf verfassungsrechtlicher Ebene kein Verbot erreicht werden kann, ist es immer noch möglich, entsprechende gesetzliche Regelungen auf tieferer Ebene festzulegen. In der Folge ergibt sich ein neues Problem: Ist es möglich, unter anderen in der Verfassung zu verankernden Grundfragen, ein Recht auf die Entwicklung wissenschaftlicher Forschung zu bestimmen , ferner ein Recht auf die Nutzung technologischer Ressourcen mit dem Ziel, die L ebensdauer des Menschen wesentlich zu verlängern? Es werden zwei Arten von Argumenten analysiert. Die erste Argumentationsweise besagt, dass die Verlängerung der L ebenszeit schädlich sei, da sie die Natur des Menschen gefährde. L aut zweiter Argumentationsweise ist eine Verlängerung der menschlichen L ebenszeit nutzlos, da sie in Sinnlosigkeit und Langweile führe

The method of reflective equilibrium implies that moral principles received from philosophical reasoning and considered moral judgments received intuitively are finally justified if they cohere with each other. This idea is combined with the proposal of rational consensus (Lehrer), which shows the way in which divergences of judgements could be made to converge. This second method is used to the end of rendering more plausible the intuitions used in reflective equilibrium, and, so, to show the appropriateness of the coherentist method in ethics.

Pitanje ovoga članka jest treba li nacionalnu pripadnost uvrstiti na popis primarnih dobara, odnosno, postoji li snažna veza između nacionalne pripadnosti i primarnih dobara o kojima se govori u klasičnoj liberalnoj formulaciji do mjere da njezina zaštita zaslužuje uvrštenje među njih. O ovom pitanju, na izravan ili manje izravan način, raspravljaju vodeći autori liberalne nacionalističke paradigme. U ovom tekstu posebno se raspravlja pretpostavljena veza između zaštite nacionalne pripadnosti i primarnog dobra društvenih osnova samopoštovanja. Unatoč određenoj potrebi javnog priznanja nacionalne pripadnosti, utemeljenje njezine zaštite na razini primarnih dobara, barem kada je riječ o argumentu koji se poziva na društvene osnove samopoštovanja, nije uvjerljivo.The issue regarded in this article is whether we have to include national belonging in the list of primary goods, i.e., whether there is a strong connection between national belonging and primary goods about which the classical liberal theory speaks, such that the protection of national belonging must be included in the list of primary goods. Leading authors in the liberal nationalist paradigm, more or less directly, discuss about this issue. In this paper, the supposed connection between the protection of national belonging and the social bases of selfrespect is specifically discussed. Despite the reasons for some public protection of national belonging, its foundation at the level of primary goods, at least as far as it concerns the argument that relies on the social bases of selfrespect, is not plausible

Cohen-Almagor's book represents a remarkable contribution to the discussion of the right to die with dignity. It offers the discussion of a wide range of topics. They include: the terminology respectful of human dignity ; the question of autonomy; the sanctity-of life – quality of life debate; criticism of some extreme quality-of-life position; criticism of Ronald Dworkin's distinction between critical and experiential interests and the consequences this author draws from it; active and passive euthanasia; the Dutch experience and the Oregon Death with Dignity Act; and many others. The book is discussed from a basically sympathetic view, where some details are focused on as meriting some further examination. Some remarks are offered to indicate the complexity of the definition of autonomy; a defense of Dworkin's argument is offered; an insistence on the necessity to rely on moral conferring features is remarked.

The theory of intentionality is the most important core of the theoretical inheritance of E. Husserl’s phenomenology. Starting from this awareness, Levinas carries out a deep research within the phenomenology in order to see whether «intentionality exhausts modalities in which the thought is meaningful». This paper will try to show how the French-Lituan philosopher, going over the genetic phenomenology research which comes to a precategorial issue, can point out the «pre-intentional», or better the «non-intentional», the original «passivity» of conscience which is not the negation of subjectivity, but instead the possibility of «giving» of transcendency. This «would not be a missed immanency», but would have in sociality – responsibility of the neighbour – the own spiritual excellency, which is the perfection of God