Since the beginning of the late modern era, modern constitutions have been trying to keep both group rights as minority rights and individual rights. But, in some cases, it is still ambiguous if an action or a phenomenon must refer to individual rights or group rights. Abortion discussions, with regard to political rights, are one example of these ambiguous cases. In this context, whereas Liberal view tends to regard abortion as individual rights of a woman, Communitarian view can be against (...) it by pointing out the right to life and this case may lead to a kind of liberal constitutional crises. This article gains importance as such constitutional crises still emerge even nowadays. John Rawls’s theory of overlapping consensus in Political Liberalism tries to solve these political conflicts that emerged in liberal constitutions by prioritizing public reason. This article conceptionally aims to examine Rawls’s theory in terms of prioritization and value relativity in abortion discussions. The method of article is hermeneutics. In order to extend the universe of the discussion, some important thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Isaiah Berlin and John Gray, who have related studies on the topic, were included. In conclusion, it is asserted that Rawl’s theory is weak both practically and theoretically as to the principle of utilitarianism violates the rights of communitarians. (shrink)

This paper discusses Kant’s account of the connection between ethics and right. Firstly, the way Kant includes rigth in the sphere of morals is considered. Secondly, the difference between moral and juridical legislation is examined in connection with the distinction between internal and external freedom. On this basis, an account of both the function of the principle of coexistence of freedoms and the connection between right and coaction is given.As a result, Kant’s complex position is characterized in terms of the (...) so called “motivational model” for the distinction between ethics and right. (shrink)

In this paper I examine the prospects for a rights-based approach to the morality of pure risk-imposition. In particular, I discuss a practical challenge to proponents of the thesis that we have a right against being imposed a risk of harm. According to an influential criticism, a right against risk-imposition will rule out all ordinary activities. The paper examines two strategies that rights theorists may follow in response to this “Paralysis Problem”. The first strategy introduces a threshold for when a (...) risk-imposition is a rights violation. The second strategy drops the claim that rights are absolute and maintains that all rights infringements generate compensation duties. It is argued that both strategies face significant practical problems of their own and that the Paralysis Problem seems fatal for a right against risk-imposition in the absence of an adequate account of the morally relevant threshold risk. (shrink)

Normal 0 21 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Nesse artigo procuro mostrar que a reconstrução habermasiana da gênese lógica do sistema de direitos é uma tentativa de explicitar o significado da práxis constituinte, reduzindo-a a dois elementos, o princípio do discurso e o conceito de forma jurídica. O princípio do discurso pode ser objeto de uma reconstrução interna, pela qual os participantes da práxis deliberativa podem reconhecê-lo como imanente a essa práxis. Isso porque o princípio do discurso se assenta nos pressupostos (...) da socialização lingüística em geral. O mesmo não se passa com a forma jurídica, que não pode ser derivada das condições comunicativas da linguagem e precisa de uma reconstrução de outro tipo, própria de uma teoria da evolução social. (shrink)