One of the main characteristics of today’s democratic societies is their pluralism. As a result, liberal political philosophers often claim that the state should remain neutral with respect to different conceptions of the good. Legal and social policies should be acceptable to everyone regard- less of their culture, their religion or their comprehensive moral views. One might think that this commitment to neutrality should be especially pronounced in urban centres, with their culturally diverse populations. However, there are a large number (...) of laws and policies adopted at the municipal level that contradict the liberal principle of neutrality. In this paper, I want to suggest that these perfectionist laws and policies are legitimate at the urban level. Specifically, I will argue that the principle of neutrality applies only indirectly to social institutions within the broader framework of the nation-state. This is clear in the case of voluntary associations, but to a certain extent this rationale applies also to cities. In a liberal regime, private associations are allowed to hold and defend perfectionist views, focused on a particular conception of the good life. One problem is to determine the limits of this perfectionism at the urban level, since cities, unlike private associations, are public institutions. My aim here is therefore to give a liberal justification to a limited form of perfectionism of municipal laws and policies. (shrink)

We argue that Reasons Fundamentalism, as defended by T.M. Scanlon, faces two important difficulties—one ontological, the other epistemological—namely the ontological proliferation problem and the reliability challenge. We suggest that formal constructivism can avoid these difficulties, and that Scanlon would do well to adopt it. We also show that Scanlon’s three main objections to this view depend either on a misunderstanding of what formal constructivism is or on a question-begging argument in favour of realism.

Quelle est la nature de la morale ? Quelle place tient-elle dans l’existence humaine ? La métaéthique ne cherche pas à répondre aux questions éthiques, portant sur ce que nous devons faire ou sur ce qu’est la vie bonne, mais à en éclairer le sens. Elle s’interroge sur la possibilité et sur l’objet de la connaissance morale, sur la fonction réelle des discours moraux ou encore sur l’effet motivationnel qu’ont sur nous les normes et les valeurs. Elle soumet ainsi l’éthique (...) à des questions relevant de l’épistémologie et de l’ontologie, de la sémantique et de la psychologie. Ce manuel, le premier en son genre en langue française, offre un panorama général des questions, des courants et des méthodes de la métaéthique contemporaine. Rassemblant treize études approfondies, il propose une introduction accessible et des contributions originales à ce champ en plein essor. (shrink)

This paper reflects on the idea that social institutions inform the development and justification of principles of justice. First, I situate this question in the context of contemporary debates in political philosophy. Then, I turn to a particular defense of this idea by looking at the conceptual relation established by John Rawls between the concept and the subject of justice. Finally, I look at works by Paul Ricœur in which he discusses Rawls’s theory of justice. Ricœur insists in various places (...) on the distributive character of social institutions, in a way that helps shed light on the relation between principles and institutions. (shrink)

Patrick Turmel,François Boucher,Marie-Noëlle Carré.

Arthur Applbaum a nommé éthique adversative la branche de l’éthique professionnelle qui cherche à justifier la moralité des rôles et des pratiques qui permettent aux acteurs d’avoir certains comportements pourtant interdits par la moralité ordinaire. Applbaum considère qu’aucun des différents arguments mis de l’avant par les défenseurs de l’éthique adversative ne justifie de tels écarts de la moralité ; les institutions adversatives et les rôles qu’elles génèrent ne peuvent créer de permissions morales exceptionnelles. Cela découle d’une position métaéthique particulière qu’il (...) nomme positivisme institutionnel (practice positivism), et que l’on peut définir ainsi : la moralité ordinaire a une priorité délibérative sur les règles et les conventions des pratiques et des institutions sociales pour la simple raison que ces dernières sont dépourvues de toute force morale. Cet article cherche à défendre l’éthique adversative contre les critiques d’Applbaum. (shrink)