The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 500-500
Author(s):  
Derek Edyvane
Idéias ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 245
Author(s):  
Camila Gonçalves de Mario ◽  
Danilo Arnaut

O livro é uma compilação de textos publicados pelo autor ao longo dos últimos dez anos e está dividido em três partes. Na primeira, Forst apresenta ao leitor as concepções que fundamentam sua teoria. Aqui estão presentes as ideias de razão prática, moralidade e o seu conceito de justiça. A segunda parte é dedicada à discussão de temas diretamente relacionados à justiça política social: a liberdade política e a autonomia do indivíduo. Com base nisso, o autor volta-se para a discussão acerca do multiculturalismo e da tolerância. Busca refletir sobre os modelos deliberativos de democracia (liberal e comunitário), propondo uma terceira alternativa a partir deles e examinando a noção de justiça social. Na terceira parte, Forst tematiza a problemática da justiça transnacional a partir de uma discussão sobre sua concepção construtivista de direitos humanos.


Author(s):  
Bas van der Vossen ◽  
Jason Brennan

The chapter defends economic liberties such as the right to private property and freedom of contract as basic human rights, which the authors refer to as productive human rights. Despite being largely ignored or criticized in the theory and practice of human rights, they serve all the key functions that human rights generally serve. Using a basic interest framework, the chapter show that productive rights qualify as human rights because they both directly serve the interests of individual rights-holders, as well as the interests of people across the societies in which they are upheld. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the theoretical implications of a theory of justice that omits productive rights, and focuses only on things like meeting people’s needs. Such a theory will end up distorting important truths about human life and agency.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMOS WITZTUM

This paper provides further evidence to the argument that Smith' theory of justice did not follow the natural justice school and that subsequently the ethical position on acquiring private property is not independent of the effects which such acquisition may have on the property-less individuals. I will show that the justification for private ownership is based on “reasonable expectations” which owners of assets have with regard to the fruits of the asset. The expectation to subsist through the use of one's natural assets is equally reasonable. This is not to say that Smith believed that society should equally distribute income. But it does mean that the acquisition of private property must not interfere with the rights of individuals to subsist. Consequently, distribution is clearly an important part of Smith's conception of justice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-23
Author(s):  
Ni Kadek Sinta Dewi ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha (Scopus ID: 57202765630) ◽  
I Nyoman Sujana

The aims of this study are to know the Nyeburin Marriage Inheritance System in Banjar Kutuh, Sayan Village, Ubud District, Gianyar Regency women as Purusa or nyentana men as Pradana if their inheritance is in the form of land assets and to know the position of social social status of men as Pradana in Nyeburin Marriage in indigenous communities in the Village of Sayan Banjar Kutuh, Ubud District, Gianyar Regency. This method uses Empirical legal research. Using the statutory approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. Sources of data are sourced from primary data (field research) and secondary data (library research). Data collection techniques consisted of interview techniques, document study techniques, and literature study techniques. The data collected was analyzed descriptive qualitatively. The author uses the theory of justice, the theory of legal certainty, the theory of reception in complex u. Based on the results of the study it was found that the inheritance of nyeburin marriage in Banjar village is still strong in women because of their status as Purusa and their social social status is different if the work of a person who becomes a pradana, for example, a doctor may look higher. The conclusion is that a woman still has the right to inherit because as a purusa and if the inheritance in the form of land remains the right of the woman and in social status remains the head of the household in the community remains the same except for work that makes their social status different.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document