Diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre John Rawls e Jeremy Waldron
This article investigates how public reason can contribute to institutional dialogue in resolving political morality disagreements. It starts from the premise that institutional dialogue promotes equality between the participating institutions, not establishing the protagonism of one of the branches...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Portuguese |
| Published: |
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=8886352 |
| Source: | Seqüência: estudos jurídicos e políticos, ISSN 2177-7055, Vol. 43, Nº. 91, 2022 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Seqüência - Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos (Aberto))31 pags. |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001590270
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
Seqüência: estudos jurídicos e políticos, ISSN 2177-7055, Vol. 43, Nº. 91, 2022 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Seqüência - Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos (Aberto))31 pags.
|
| language |
Portuguese
|
| topic |
Institutional Dialogue
Public Reason John Rawls Jeremy Waldron Diálogo Institucional Razão Pública John Rawls Jeremy Waldron |
| spellingShingle |
Institutional Dialogue
Public Reason John Rawls Jeremy Waldron Diálogo Institucional Razão Pública John Rawls Jeremy Waldron Casimiro Gomes Serafim, Matheus Brandão, Rodrigo Diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre John Rawls e Jeremy Waldron |
| description |
This article investigates how public reason can contribute to institutional dialogue in resolving political morality disagreements. It starts from the premise that institutional dialogue promotes equality between the participating institutions, not establishing the protagonism of one of the branches. As a methodology, a bibliographic study is carried out, especially of two authors who disagree deeply about the content and scope of application of public reason: John Rawls, who defends a special role for the Supreme Court; and Jeremy Waldron, who advocates the legislative role in resolving moral disagreements. Analyzing the authors' arguments, it is possible to emphasize two conclusions that contribute to an isonomic institutional dialogue: first, that the Constitutional Courts, despite their special contribution to institutional dialogue, do not have exclusive access to public reason, not serving as a superior reference to other branches; second, that although constitutional argumentation is an important element of public reasoning, there are other equally relevant arguments that can be better examined by the Legislative and the Executive.
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Casimiro Gomes Serafim, Matheus
Brandão, Rodrigo |
| author_facet |
Casimiro Gomes Serafim, Matheus
Brandão, Rodrigo |
| author_sort |
Casimiro Gomes Serafim, Matheus
|
| title |
Diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre John Rawls e Jeremy Waldron
|
| title_short |
Diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre John Rawls e Jeremy Waldron
|
| title_full |
Diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre John Rawls e Jeremy Waldron
|
| title_fullStr |
Diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre John Rawls e Jeremy Waldron
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
Diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre John Rawls e Jeremy Waldron
|
| title_sort |
diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre john rawls e jeremy waldron
|
| publishDate |
2022
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=8886352
|
| _version_ |
1763296466446581760
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00015902702023-04-14Diálogo institucional e razão pública: revisitando o debate entre John Rawls e Jeremy WaldronCasimiro Gomes Serafim, MatheusBrandão, RodrigoInstitutional DialoguePublic ReasonJohn RawlsJeremy WaldronDiálogo InstitucionalRazão PúblicaJohn RawlsJeremy WaldronThis article investigates how public reason can contribute to institutional dialogue in resolving political morality disagreements. It starts from the premise that institutional dialogue promotes equality between the participating institutions, not establishing the protagonism of one of the branches. As a methodology, a bibliographic study is carried out, especially of two authors who disagree deeply about the content and scope of application of public reason: John Rawls, who defends a special role for the Supreme Court; and Jeremy Waldron, who advocates the legislative role in resolving moral disagreements. Analyzing the authors' arguments, it is possible to emphasize two conclusions that contribute to an isonomic institutional dialogue: first, that the Constitutional Courts, despite their special contribution to institutional dialogue, do not have exclusive access to public reason, not serving as a superior reference to other branches; second, that although constitutional argumentation is an important element of public reasoning, there are other equally relevant arguments that can be better examined by the Legislative and the Executive.O presente artigo investiga como a razão pública pode contribuir para o diálogo institucional na resolução de desacordos de moralidade política. Parte-se da premissa de que o diálogo institucional promove igualdade entre as instituições participantes, não estabelecendo o protagonismo de um dos Poderes. Como metodologia, realiza-se o estudo bibliográfico, especialmente de dois autores que discordam profundamente sobre o conteúdo e o âmbito de aplicação da razão pública: John Rawls, o qual defende um papel especial para a Suprema Corte; e Jeremy Waldron, defensor do protagonismo legislativo na resolução de desacordos morais. Analisando os argumentos dos autores, é possível ressaltar duas conclusões que contribuem para um diálogo institucional isonômico: primeiro, que as Cortes Constitucionais, apesar de sua especial contribuição para o diálogo institucional, não possuem acesso exclusivo à razão pública, não servindo como referencial superior aos outros Poderes; segundo, que apesar da argumentação constitucional ser um elemento importante da razão pública, existem outros argumentos igualmente relevantes que podem ser melhor examinados pelo Legislativo e pelo Executivo.2022text (article)application/pdf(Revista) ISSN 2177-7055https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=8886352Seqüência: estudos jurídicos e políticos, ISSN 2177-7055, Vol. 43, Nº. 91, 2022 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Seqüência - Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos (Aberto))31 pags. porLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|