Search for: [Keywords = "justice"] - PAS Journals

advanced search

Search results

Search for: [Keywords = "justice"]

Filters

Search results

Number of results: 37

items per page: 25 50 75

Sort by:

of 2

Teachers’ Perceptions, Experiences, and Challenges of Incorporating Justice in English as a Foreign Language Classrooms

Masoomeh Estaji Kiyana Zhaleh

Polish Psychological Bulletin | 2021 | vol. 52 | No 3 | 251-269 | DOI: 10.24425/ppb.2021.137889

Keywords classroom justice enactment classroom injustice behavior distributive justice EFL teachers interactional justice procedural justice

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The present qualitative study sought to unravel English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers’ perceptions and experiences of classroom justice and injustice. By employing purposive sampling, 31 EFL teachers in Iran were targeted to respond to an open-ended questionnaire. Subsequently, five of them took part in a follow-up, semi-structured interview. All data analyses were conducted via MAXQDA software. The main findings of the study were as follows; (1) The procedural, interactional, and distributive justice dimensions emerged in the teachers’ accounts of justice and injustice; (2) classroom justice was highlighted more saliently in teachers’ accounts than classroom injustice; (3) the teachers mainly had positive evaluations of their justice practices; and (4) they regarded educational and institutional factors, student-related factors, and teacher-related factors as the three major sources of challenges faced by EFL teachers when enacting classroom justice. It is hoped that by unraveling and reflecting on their justice and injustice behaviors, EFL teachers be prompted to go for their instructional justice betterment and more skillfully handle daily challenges that they face when trying to act fairly in the classroom.

Bibliography

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). Academic Press.
Argon, T., & Kepekcioglu, E. S. (2016). The relationship between university students’ instructors’ credibility and perceptions of justice in the classroom. The Anthropologist, 24(1), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2016.11892024
Baralt, M. (2012). Coding qualitative data. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition (pp. 222– 244). Blackwell.
Bempechat, J., Ronfard, S., Mirny, A., Li, J., & Holloway, S. D. (2013). She always gives grades lower than one deserves: A qualitative study of Russian adolescents’ perceptions of fairness in the classroom. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 7(4), 169–187.
BERA. (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research. Retrieved from http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2xnp5/Bera/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http://free.yudu.com/item/details/2023387/Bera
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 43– 55). JAI Press.
Brown, J. D. (2009). Open-response items in questionnaires. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 200–219). Palgrave Macmillan.
Buttner, E. H. (2004). How do we dis students? A model of (dis) respectful business instructor behavior. Journal of Management Education, 28(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903252656
Chory, R. M., & Kingsley Westerman, C. Y. (2009). Feedback and fairness: The relationship between negative performance feedback and organizational justice. Western Journal of Communication, 73(2), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856055
Chory, R. M., Horan, S. M., & Houser, M. L. (2017). Justice in the higher education classroom: Students’ perceptions of unfairness and responses to instructors. Innovative Higher Education, 42(4), 321– 336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9388-9
Chory, R. M., Horan, S. M., Carton, S., & Houser, M. L. (2014). Toward a further understanding of students’ emotional responses to class-room injustice. Communication Education, 63(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.837496
Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370209385646
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 53(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000265189
Čiuladienė, G., & Račelytė, D. (2016). Perceived unfairness in teacher- student conflict situations: students’ point of view. Polish Journal of Applied Psychology, 14(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjap-2015-0049
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
Cole, F. L. (1988) Content analysis: Process and application. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 2(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002800-198800210-00025
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Coombe, C. (2020). Quality education begins with teachers What are the qualities that make a TESOL teacher great? In J. D. M. Agudo (Ed.), Quality in TESOL and teacher education: From a results culture towards a quality culture (pp. 171–184). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating qualitative and quantitative approaches. Prentice Merrill Hall.
Dalbert, C. (2011). U¨ bersichtsarbeit. Warum die durch die Schu¨ler und Schu¨lerinnen individuell und subjektiv erlebte Gerechtigkeit des Lehrerhandelns wichtig ist [Review work. Why is the justice of the teachers' actions individually and subjectively experienced by the students important?]. Zeitschrift fu¨r Pa¨dagogische Psychologie, 25, 5–18.
Dalbert, C. (2013). Die Bedeutung schulischen Gerechtigkeitserlebens fu¨r das subjektive Wohlbefinden in der Schule [The meaning of justice experiences for subjective well-being at school]. In C. Dalbert (Ed.), Gerechtigkeit in der Schule (pp. 127–143). Springer VS.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall. Derakhshan, A., Coombe, C., Zhaleh, K., & Tabatabaeian, M. (2020). Examining the roles of continuing professional development needs and views of research in English language teachers’ success. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language (TESL-EJ), 24(3). http://www.tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej95/a2.pdf
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. Yale University Press.
Di Battista, S., Pivetti, M. & Berti, C. (2014). Engagement in the university context: exploring the role of a sense of justice and social identification. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9255-9
Dickinson, A. R., & Kreitmair, U. K. (2019). The importance of feeling cared for: Does a student’s perception of how much a professor cares about student success relate to class Performance? Journal of Political Science Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2019.1659803
Donat, M., Dalbert, C., & Kamble, S. V. (2014). Adolescents’ cheating and delinquent behavior from a justice-psychological perspective: the role of teacher justice. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(4), 635–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0218-5
Donat, M., Gallschütz, C. & Dalbert, C. (2018). The relation between students’ justice experiences and their school refusal behavior. Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s112180179423-9
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Ehrhardt-Madapathi, N., Pretsch, J., & Schmitt, M. (2018). Effects of injustice in primary schools on students’ behavior and joy of learning. Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 337–369. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11218017-9416-8
Estaji, M., & Zhaleh, K. (2021). Exploring Iranian teachers’ perceptions of classroom justice and its dimensions in EFL instructional contexts. Language Related Research, 12(3), 277-314. https://doi.org/10.29252/LRR.12.3.10.
Fitzgerald, S. M., Mahony, D., Crawford, F., & Hnat, H. B. (2014). Distributive justice in higher education: Perceptions of adminis-trators. Innovative Higher Education, 39(5), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755019287-2
Frymier, A. B., Goldman, Z. W., & Claus, C. J. (2019). Why nonverbal immediacy matters: A motivation explanation. Communication Quarterly, 67(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2019.1668442
Gao, L. X., & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Teacher learning in difficult times: Examining foreign language teachers’ cognitions about online teaching to tide over COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2396. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549653
Grazia, V., Mameli, C., & Molinar, L. (2020). Adolescents’ profiles based on student agency and teacher autonomy support: Does interpersonal justice matter? European Journal of Psychology of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00504-2
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9–22.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The intellectual adolescence of organizational justice: You’ve come a long way, maybe. Social Justice Research, 6 (1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048736
Gutierez, S. B., & Kim, H.-B. (2017). Becoming teacher-researchers: Teachers’ reflections on collaborative professional development. Educational Research, 59(4), 444–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1347051
Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Understanding students’ classroom justice experiences and responses. Communication Education, 59(4), 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2010.487282
Houser, M. L., & Hosek, A. M. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Houston, M., & Bettencourt, L. (1999). But that's not fair! An exploratory study of student perceptions of instructor fairness. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475399212002
Israelashvili, M. (1997). Situational determinants of school students' feelings of injustice. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 31(4), 283–292.
Jasso, G., Törnblom, K. Y., & Sabbagh, C. (2016). Distributive justice. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 201–218). Springer.
Jiang, R., Liu, R.-D., Ding, Y., Zhen, R., Sun, Y., & Fu, X. (2018). Teacher justice and students’ class identification: Belief in a just world and teacher-student relationship as mediators. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00802
Kaufmann, R., & Tatum, N. T. (2018). Examining direct and indirect effects of classroom procedural justice on online students’ will-ingness to talk. Distance Education, 39(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476838
Kazemi, A. (2016). Examining the interplay of justice perceptions, motivation, and school achievement among secondary school students. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0261-2
Kazemi, A., & Törnblom, K. (2008). Social psychology of justice: Origins, central issues, recent developments, and future directions. Nordic Psychology, 60(3), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.60.3.209
Killen, M. (2018). The origins of morality: Social equality, fairness, and justice. Philosophical Psychology, 31(5), 767–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2018.1486612
Kitchen, S. (2020). A student's response to Dr. Matusov’s article, “a student’s right to freedom of education”. Dialogic Pedagogy, 8, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2020.361
Laletas, S., & Reupert, A. (2016). Exploring pre-service secondary teachers’ understanding of care. Teachers and Teaching, 22(4), 485– 503. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1082730
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). Plenum.
Li, J. (2006). Self in learning: Chinese adolescents’ goals and sense of agency. Child Development, 77(2), 482–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00883.x
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02602930701292548
Mameli, C., Biolcati, R., Passini, S., & Mancini, G. (2018). School context and subjective distress: The influence of teacher justice and school-specific well-being on adolescents’ psychological health. School Psychology International, 39(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318794226
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2018). Basic psychological needs and school engagement: A focus on justice and agency. Social Psychology of Education, 21(1), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9410-1
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (Second ed.). Sage Publications. Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820941288
Onchwari, J. (2010). Early childhood inservice and preservice teachers’ perceived levels of preparedness to handle stress in their students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0361-9
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage. Peter, F., & Dalbert, C. (2010). Do my teachers treat me justly? Implications of students’ justice experience for class climate experience. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 297– 305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.06.001
Pishghadam, R., Derakhshan, A., & Zhaleh, K. (2019). The interplay of teacher success, credibility, and stroke with respect to students’ willingness to attend classes. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 50(4), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2019.131001
Pishghadam, R., Naji Meidani, E., & Khajavy, G. (2015). Language teachers’ conceptions of intelligence and their roles in teacher care and teacher feedback. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 60–82. http://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n1.4
Rasooli, A., DeLuca, C., Rasegh, A., & Fathi, S. (2019). Students’ critical incidents of fairness in classroom assessment: An empirical study. Social Psychology of Education, 22(3), 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2019.1593105
Rasooli, A., Zandi, H., & DeLuca, C. (2018). Re-conceptualizing classroom assessment fairness: A systematic meta-ethnography of assessment literature and beyond. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 56, 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.12.008
Resh, N. (2010). Sense of justice about grades in school: Is it stratified like academic achievement? Social Psychology of Education, 13(3), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-010-9117-z
Robbins, T. L., & Jeffords, B. C. (2009). Practicing what we preach: Justice and ethical instruction in management education. Ethics and Education, 4(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/174496409 02861562
Rodrigues, I. B., Adachi, J. D., Beattie, K. A., & MacDermid, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 18(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1914-5
Sabbagh C., Schmitt M. (2016) Past, present, and future of social justice theory and research. In C. Sabbagh., & M. Schmitt. (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 1–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_1
Sabbagh, C., Resh, N., Mor, M., & Vanhuysse, P. (2006). Spheres of justice within schools: Reflections and evidence on the distribution of educational goods. Social Psychology of Education, 9(2), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-005-3319-9
Sabbagh, C., & Resh, N. (2014). Citizenship orientations in a divided society: A comparison of three groups of Israeli junior-high students —secular Jews, religious Jews, and Israeli Arabs. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, 9(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197913497662
Sabbagh, C., & Resh, N. (2016). Unfolding justice research in the realm of education. Social Justice Research, 29(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-016-0262-1
Sonnleitner, P., & Kovacs, C. (2020). Differences between students’ and teachers’ fairness perceptions: Exploring the potential of a self- administered questionnaire to improve teachers’ assessment practices. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00017
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tyler, T. R. (1987). Procedural justice research. Social Justice Research, 1(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049383
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 115–191). Academic Press.
Vermunt R., Steensma H. (2016). Procedural justice. In C. Sabbagh., & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 219–236). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_12

Authors and Affiliations

Masoomeh Estaji

1

Kiyana Zhaleh

1

Department of English Language and Literature, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

The idea of transcendentalism according to John Rawls: The problem of justification in the theory of justice

Stanisław Jędrczak

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 381-396 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138994

Keywords justice as fairness moral theory political theory principles of justice transcendental arguments

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper aims at presenting a transcendental argument, so termed and constructed by John Rawls, as a justification of his theory of ‘justice as fairness’. The crucial stage in the chain of his reasoning is to establish the necessary condition of the political arrangement of the basic structure of society. This condition turns out to be acceptability of the publicly endorsed principles in the original position. However, the procedure of exercising free choice, as described by Rawls, presupposes a philosophical view of human nature, and consequently undermines the presumably purely theoretical basis for the principles of justice. The author discusses the impact of Kantian moral philosophy on Rawls’s theory of justification. He tries to show that the rejection of moral theory in favour of political philosophy was the result of a profound change in Rawls’s attitude to the idea of transcendentalism, as it is evidenced by his later thought.

Bibliography

Allison H. (2016), Transcendental Deduction and Transcendental Idealism, „European Journal of Philosophy” 4 (24), s. 920–933.
Ameriks K. (2001), Text and Context: Hermeneutical Prolegomena to Interpreting a Kant Text, w: D. Schönecker, T. Zwenger (red.), Kant verstehen / Understanding Kant. Über die Interpretation philosophischer Texte, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, s. 11–31.
Białek P. (2017), Pycha i skromność rozumu. Współczesny spór o argumenty transcendentalne a filozofia Kanta i Fichtego, Kraków: Universitas.
Callanan J.J. (2011), Making Sense of Doubt: Strawson’s Anti‑Scepticism, „Theoria” 77 (3), s. 261–278.
Grygianiec M. (2019), Status argumentacji transcendentalnej, „Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria” 4 (112), s. 131–160.
Guyer P. (2001), Naturalizing Kant, w: D. Schönecker, T. Zwenger (red.), Kant verstehen / Understanding Kant. Über die Interpretation philosophischer Texte, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, s. 59–84.
Kant I. (1957), Krytyka czystego rozumu, przeł. R. Ingarden, t. I, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Kant I. (1999), Critique of Pure Reason, przeł. i opr. P. Guyer, A.W. Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kędziora K. (2019), John Rawls. Uzasadnienie, sprawiedliwość i rozum publiczny, Bibliotheca Philosophica 5, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Korsgaard Ch. (1995), Rawls and Kant: On the Primacy of the Practical, „Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress”, t. I, Memphis 1999, s. 1165–1173.
Palmer H. (1985), Presupposition and Transcendental Inference, New York: Routledge.
Poręba M. (2008), Możliwość rozumu. Ćwiczenia z metafizyki, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Rawls J. (1977), The Basic Structure as Subject, „American Philosophical Quarterly” 2 (14), s. 159–165.
Rawls J. (1980), Kantian Constructivism in Moral Philosophy, „The Journal of Philosophy” 9 (77), s. 515–572.
Rawls J. (1985), Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical, „Philosophy & Public Affairs” 3 (14), s. 223–251.
Rawls J. (1989), Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy, w: E. Förster (red.), Kant’s Transcendental Deductions. The Three Critiques and the Opus postumum, Stanford: Stanford University Press, s. 81–113.
Rawls J. (1993), Political Liberalism, New York: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2000), Lectures on the history of moral philosophy, red. B. Herman, Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2001), Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, red. E. Kelly, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2013), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rorty R. (1999), Pierwszeństwo demokracji wobec filozofii, w: tenże, Obiektywność, relatywizm i prawda. Pisma filozoficzne, przeł. J. Margański, t. I, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia, s. 261–291.
Russell B. (2000), Dzieje filozofii Zachodu i jej związki z rzeczywistością polityczno-‑społeczną od czasów najdawniejszych do dnia dzisiejszego, przeł. T. Baszniak, A. Lipszyc, M. Szczubiałka, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Sandel M. (1982), Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sellars W. (1956), Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, „Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science” I, s. 253–329.
Sellars W. (1967), Some Remarks on Kant’s Theory of Experience, „Journal of Philosophy” 64, s. 633–647.
Sellars W. (1968), Science and Metaphysics. Variations on Kantian Themes, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Strawson P.F. (1959), Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, London: Methuen.
Strawson P.F. (1966), The Bounds of Sense, London: Methuen. Tampio N. (2007), Rawls and the Kantian Ethos, „Polity” 1 (39), s. 79–102.
Wolniewicz B. (2017), Aksjomat Elzenberga, „Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria” 4 (110), s. 277–288.

Authors and Affiliations

Stanisław Jędrczak

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Filozofii, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00‑927 Warszawa

In the Pursuit of Justice: (Ab)Use of the European Arrest Warrant in the Polish Criminal Justice System

Witold Klaus Justyna Włodarczyk-Madejska Dominik Wzorek

Central and Eastern European Migration Review | 2021 | vol. 10 | No 1 : Unwanted Citizens of EU Member States and Their Forced Returns within the European Union | 95-117

Keywords European Arrest Warrant deportation criminal justice membership

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Poland is the leading country in pursuing its own citizens under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), with the number of EAWs issued between 2005 and 2013 representing one third of the warrants issued by all EU countries (although some serious inconsistencies between Polish and Eurostat sta-tistical data can be observed). The data show that Poland overuses this instrument by issuing EAWs in minor cases, sometimes even for petty crimes. However, even though this phenomenon is so wide-spread, it has attracted very little academic interest thus far. This paper fills that gap. The authors scrutinise the topic against its legal, theoretical and statistical backdrop. Based on their findings, a theoretical perspective is drawn up to consider what the term ‘justice’ actually means and which activities of the criminal justice system could be called ‘just’ and which go beyond this term. The main question to answer is: Should every crime be pursued (even a petty one) and every person face pun-ishment – even after years have passed and a successful and law-abiding life has been building in another country? Or should some restrictions be introduced to the law to prevent the abuse of justice?

Authors and Affiliations

Witold Klaus

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Justyna Włodarczyk-Madejska

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Dominik Wzorek

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

International and Municipal Law before the World Court: One or Two Legal Orders?

Peter Tomka Jessica Howley Vincent-Joël Proulx

Polish Yearbook of International Law | No XXXV | DOI: 10.7420/pyil2015a

Keywords International Court of Justice Permanent Court of International Justice international courts international tribunals international law domestic law monism dualism judicial interpretation sources evidence

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the approach taken by the International Court of Justice and its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, to questions of municipal law. Beginning with an outline of the theoretical framework, it discusses the conventional position that domestic law is a factual issue for the Court, before considering the ways in which the two Courts have utilised municipal law. It also considers to what extent the Court employs domestic law in ascertaining international legal rules.

Authors and Affiliations

Peter Tomka

Jessica Howley

Vincent-Joël Proulx

Original Sin Reaffirmed: The Nicaragua Judgement’s Impact on the Notion of Armed Attack as the Most Grave Form of the Use of Force

Michał Kowalski

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2016 | No XXXVI | DOI: 10.7420/pyil2016c

Keywords aggression armed attack ICJ International Court of Justice jus ad bellum Nicaragua use of force

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article is referenced to the thirtieth anniversary of the ICJ’s Nicaragua judgement on the merits of 1986. It acknowledges the significance of this much-debated judgement for the modern international law on the use of force (jus ad bellum). However the text focuses on one aspect of the judgment only, i.e. the definition of the notion of “armed attack” as the most grave form of the use of force. The impact of the judgement in this respect is critically analysed. It is argued that the introduction to the UN Charter text of undefined notions of the use of force, aggression, and armed attack may be labelled as the “original sin” of contemporary jus ad bellum, as it results in conceptual obscurity. It is also claimed that the ICJ reaffirmed this original sin in its Nicaragua judgment because it explicitly argued for the notion of “armed attack” as the most grave form of the use of armed force and, in consequence, distinguished it from the other, lesser forms of the use of force, while failing to introduce any sort of clarity in the conceptual ambiguity of jus ad bellum. The article also offers some remarks de lege ferenda and suggests abandoning the gravity criterion, which would require abandoning the well-established judicial and doctrinal interpretation approaches to jus ad bellum.

Authors and Affiliations

Michał Kowalski

The Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence: Hopes, Disappointments and Its Relevance to Crimea

René Värk

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2014 | No XXXIV | DOI: 10.7420/pyil2014f

Keywords annexation Crimea declaration of independence ICJ International Court of Justice Kosovo Russian Federation Ukraine

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The international community anxiously awaited delivery of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Kosovo’s declaration of independence, hoping it would clarify the controversial right of self-determination and the right of secession. Although it was hailed by many as a confirmation of both rights, the advisory opinion was disappointing regarding that part of the analysis which was based on general international law. The ICJ interpreted the question posed in a very narrow and formalistic way. It concluded that declarations of independence (not their consequences) are not in violation of international law, but it did not rule that they are in accordance with international law, as was requested in the posed question. The ICJ refused to examine whether there is a positive entitlement to secession under international law. Although Kosovo and its supporters claimed that the case of Kosovo is unique and will not set a precedent, Russia used the case of Kosovo and the advisory opinion to justify the so-called referendum in Crimea and the subsequent incorporation of Crimea into Russia. However, the situation in Crimea is only superficially comparable to Kosovo and the advisory opinion gives little or no support in the case of Crimea

Authors and Affiliations

René Värk

Insolvency Forum Shopping – What Can Be Learned from the ECJ and US Supreme Court Case Law on International Company Law and Insolvency Procedures?

Mirosława Myszke-Nowakowska

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2017 | No XXXVII | 203-222

Keywords Centre of Main Interest company law European Court of Justice forum shopping insolvency US Supreme Court

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The recast of the European Insolvency Regulation, which has been applicable from 26 June 2017, implements a philosophy of Euro universalism, according to which in solvency proceedings opened in a Member State where the debtor has its centre of main in terests (COMI) should have a universal scope and encompass all the debtor’s assets situated throughout the EU.

The wording of the Recast Regulation is in tended to comply with the ECJ case law concerning COMI, such as Interedil, Eurofood, Bank Handlowy or Mediasucre judgments. Nevertheless, it is now questioned whether the Recast Regulation strengthens or rather weakens the COMI/registered office rebuttable presumption and opens the gate for in solvency forum shopping.

As far as international company law is concerned, the issue of transfer of seat as well as forum shopping has been widely discussed. So far the ECJ has issued a series of judgments in which it has explained the European freedom of establishment and the cross-border activities of companies in the internal market.

Similarly, the US Supreme Court has issued several significant decisions, such as CTP Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, Edgar v. MITE Corp., and International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, in which the limits of acceptable forum shopping are better delin eated.

Based on the aforementioned, it may be concluded that European harmonization measures facilitating cross-border mobility should additionally assist in achieving predictability and efficiency, as well as the economic viability and security of the operations under consideration.

This contribution analyses and expounds on the lessons that can be learned from both the ECJ case law as well as US Supreme Court’s decisions on in ternational company law, in cluding an examin ation of their effect on in solvency forum shoppin g. There is no doubt that, if successful, harmonized legislation on these matters would be a great asset for the internal market.

Authors and Affiliations

Mirosława Myszke-Nowakowska

De facto power grab in context: upgrading Rule of Law in Europe in populist times

Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2020 | No XL | 197-208 | DOI: 10.24425/pyil.2021.138436

Keywords backsliding Court of Justice Hungary judicial independence Poland Rule of Law

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Over the last three years European Union (EU) law has experienced a veritable revolution triggered by the Court of Justice’s rethinking of the fundamental aspects underpinning both the EU’s competence to deal with Rule of Law matters (especially related to the independence and the irremovability of judges at the national level), and the substantive understanding of the key elements of the Rule of Law pertaining to the newly-found competence. An upgraded approach to interim relief in matters related to the Rule of Law completes the picture. As a result, EU law has gone through a profound transformation and the assumptions as to the perceived limits of its reach – insofar as the organization of the national judiciaries is concerned – no longer hold. However, there is also the opposite side to this “Rule of Law revolution.” While its effectiveness in terms of bringing recalcitrant Member States back on track has not been proven (and Poland and Hungary stand as valid reasons for doubts); the division of powers between the Member States and the EU has been altered forever. Rule of Law thus emerges as a successful pretext for a supranational powergrab in the context of EU federalism. The picture is further complicated by the fact that the substantive elements of the Rule of Law required by the Court of Justice of the European Union of the Member States’ judiciaries are seemingly perceived as inapplicable to the supranational level itself. These include structural independence from other branches of power and safeguards of the guarantees of irremovability and security of tenure of the members of the judiciaries. Taking all these elements into consideration, the glorious revolution appears to have triggered at least as many questions as it has provided answers, while being entirely unable to resolve the outstanding problems on the ground in the Member States experiencing significant backsliding in the areas of democracy and the Rule of Law.

Authors and Affiliations

Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov

1 2 3

e-mail:

ORCID:

CEU Democracy Institute, Budapest
CEU Legal Studies Department, Vienna
COMPAS Visiting Academic (Hilary term 2021), School of Anthropology, University of Oxford

What Motivates People to Comply With the Law and Regard It as Legitimate in the Polish System of Justice? The Identification and Analysis of the Construct of Procedural Justice

Tomasz Prusiński

Polish Psychological Bulletin | 2020 | vol. 51 | No 2 | 126-138 | DOI: 10.24425/ppb.2020.133770

Keywords procedural justice judicial system courts civil cases compliance with decision

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

People appear in the courtroom when they engage in various disputes with others and have diverse problems of their own. The courts are supposed to provide them with a space where they can obtain justice, in accordance with the law. It is no less important, however, that while pursuing this goal the courts should deal with people’s problems in a way that makes the people willing to accept and comply with their decisions. The central issue defining the scope of this empirical study was the question of what element of the construct of procedural justice promotes behaviors associated with legitimacy and compliance with the law in the Polish judicial system. The author set out to investigate what identified procedural justice in Polish legal culture and what variables pertaining to the context of legal proceedings it was related to. The sample consisted of 115 individuals taking part in civil court proceedings conducted in civil divisions of district courts. Based on analyses performed on research results it can be concluded that behaviors associated with legitimacy and compliance with the law in the Polish judicial system is determined by the sense of fairness experienced in the courtroom, whose structure is built by experiences such as being given the opportunity to speak, being treated with respect, the judge’s impartiality, the comprehensibility of the language used and procedures applied in the courtroom, and the sense of influence on the final outcome of the proceedings.

Authors and Affiliations

Tomasz Prusiński

Institutions and practices: The ontology of John Rawls’s ‘well‑ordered society’

Wojciech Graboń Marcin Woźny

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 335-346 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138991

Keywords institutions practices J. Rawls social ontology „A Theory of Justice”

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to highlight the relationship between normative theory and social ontology through an analysis of John Rawls’s concept of ‘well‑ordered society’. By expressing the ontological assumptions underlying Rawls’s theory, it is possible to better understand the role of practices and institutions in A Theory of Justice and to counter some of the criticisms levelled against Rawls’s institutionalism. The proposed interpretation of Rawls’s theory may be recognized as a contribution to the interactionist approach in the field of social ontology.

Bibliography

Berkey B. (2016), Against Rawlsian Institutionalism about Justice, „Social Theory and Practice” 42 (4), s. 706–732.
Ciszewski W. (2020), Rozum i demokracja. Wprowadzenie do koncepcji rozumu publicznego Johna Rawlsa, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Cohen G.A. (1997), Where the Action Is: On the Site of Distributive Justice, „Philosophy & Public Affairs” 26 (1), s. 3–30.
Diver N. (2004), Institutions and Social Justice [nieopublikowana rozprawa doktorska], University of Pennsylvania.
Frega R. (2018), The Social Ontology of Democracy, „Journal of Social Ontology” 4 (2), s. 157–185.
Kwarciński T. (2006), Możliwości czy dobra pierwotne? Dyskusja Amartyi Sena z Johnem Rawlsem na temat właściwej przestrzeni sprawiedliwości, „Roczniki Filozoficzne” 54 (1), s. 81–106.
Mandle J. (2009), Rawls’s „A Theory of Justice”: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mandle J., Reidy D.A. (red.) (2014), The Cambridge Rawls Lexicon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy L.B. (1998), Institutions and the Demands of Justice, „Philosophy & Public Affairs” 27 (4), s. 251–291.
Nozick R. (1974), Anarchy, State and Utopia, New York: Basic Books.
Pettit P. (2005), Rawls’s Political Ontology, „Politics, Philosophy & Economics” 4 (2), s. 157–174.
Pettit P. (2006), Rawls’s Peoples, w: R. Martin, D.A. Reidy (red.), Rawls’s Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley‑Blackwell, s. 38–55.
Rawls A. (2009), An Essay on Two Conceptions of Social Order, „Journal of Classical Sociology” 9 (4), s. 500–520.
Rawls J. (1955), Two Concepts of Rules, „The Philosophical Review” 64 (1), s. 3–32.
Rawls J. (2009), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, S. Szymański, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Sen A. (2009), The Idea of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Authors and Affiliations

Wojciech Graboń

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Marcin Woźny

2 3

e-mail:

ORCID:

Uniwersytet Warszawski, Szkoła Doktorska Nauk Humanistycznych, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00‑927 Warszawa
Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Filozofii, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00‑927 Warszawa
Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Prawa i Administracji, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00‑927 Warszawa

The problem of envy in the context of principles of justice and Rawls’s construction of the original position

Adrian Kuźniar

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 259-273 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138986

Keywords difference principle egalitarianism envy J. Rawls self‑respect theory of justice

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The paper analyses and develops John Rawls’s defence of his theory of justice against the conservative objection that egalitarian conceptions of social justice are an expression of envy. The defence involves the following claims: (1) The content of the difference principle does not match an essential property of envy. (2) The parties in the original position are not motivated by envy. (3) None of the conditions imposed on the original position arise from envy. Next, it is argued that there are reasons to suppose that the parties in the original position would choose a more egalitarian principle of distributive justice than the difference principle. These reasons are grounded in the claim that self respect is the most important primary good and in the fact that the level of economic inequalities is negatively correlated with self respect among the least advantaged members of society. It is shown that even though the content of the more egalitarian principle matches the essential property of envy, the conservative objection remains unjustified.

Bibliography

Crocker J., Blanton H. (1999), Social Inequality and Self‑Esteem: The Moderating Effects of Social Comparison, Legitimacy, and Contingencies of Self‑Esteem, w: T.R. Tyler, R.M. Kramer, O.P. John (red.), The Psychology of the Social Self, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, s. 171–191.
Krauss M.W., Park J.W. (2014), The Undervalued Self: Social Class and Self-‑Evaluation, „Frontiers of Psychology” 5, s. 1–9.
Nozick R. (2010), Anarchia, państwo, utopia, przeł. P. Maciejko, M. Szczubiałka, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Rawls J. (2009), Teoria sprawiedliwości. Wydanie nowe, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, przekład przejrzał i uzupełnił S. Szymański, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Schoeck H. (1969), Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, London: Secker and Warburg.
Tesser A. (1988), Toward a Self‑Evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior, „Advances in Experimental Social Psychology” 21, s. 181–227.
Wilkinson R., Pickett K. (2011), The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Authors and Affiliations

Adrian Kuźniar

The principle of reciprocity and its role in constructing the political conception of justice according to John Rawls

Dariusz Dańkowski SJ

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 275-292

Keywords capitalism democracy political liberalism J. Rawls reciprocity social justice

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The idea that everyone should accept the terms of a contract, provided that others do so, is the core normative idea of John Rawls’s doctrine of social justice, presented in his major books: A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism. In the present paper I argue that the principle of reciprocity makes it possible for Rawls to intertwine coherently two competing thought streams in the liberal tradition – the first one focusing on economic equality and the second one rooted in liberty. The idea of reciprocity adopted with the intention of satisfying the ideal of reasonableness in a well‑ordered society is the foundation of a genuine acceptance of the political conception of justice and of the civic ties and civic friendship. However, the historical and cultural analysis supports the conclusion that the Rawls’s project is buttressed by multigenerational experience of the discipline and ethos of the free market economy, which has not been openly endorsed by Rawls. Without support from such experience social solidarity within ethically neutral institutions would be hard to achieve unless it is expressed in terms of communitarian, patriotic or religious values.

Bibliography

Barry B. (1989), Theories of Justice, t. I, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dańkowski D. (2013), Rawls on Religion in Public Debate, Kraków: WAM.
Dańkowski D. (2021), Odpowiedzialny patriotyzm a walka o uznanie, w: M. Bogunia-Borowska (red.), Kultura (nie)odpowiedzialności, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Dreben B. (2003), On Rawls and Political Liberalism, w: S. Freeman (red.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman S. (2003), Introduction: John Rawls – An Overview, w: tenże (red.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gutmann A. (2003), Rawls on the Relationship between Liberalism and Democracy, w: S. Freeman (red.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas J. (2015), Teoria działania komunikacyjnego, przeł. A. Kaniowski, t. I, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
James A. (2014), Political Constructivism, w: J. Mandle, D. Reidy (red.), A Companion to Rawls, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Malden, MA: Wiley‑Blackwell.
Kelly E. (2014), Inequality, Difference, and Prospects for Democracy, w: J. Mandle, D. Reidy (red.), A Companion to Rawls, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Malden, MA: Wiley‑Blackwell.
Lesiński B., Rozwadowski W. (1985), Historia prawa, wyd. IV, Warszawa – Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Lister A. (2011), Justice as Fairness and Reciprocity, „Analyse & Kritik” 1, Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius, s. 93–112.
Nagel T. (2003), Rawls and Liberalism, w: S. Freeman (red.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nozick R. (1999), Anarchia, państwo, utopia, przeł. P. Maciejko, M. Szczubiałka, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Nussbaum M. (2007), Frontiers of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Olszewski H., Zmierczak M. (1994), Historia doktryn politycznych i prawnych, Poznań: Ars Boni.
Ossowska M. (1985), Moralność mieszczańska, Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Rawls J. (1996), Political Liberalism. Reply to Habermas, w: tenże, Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls J. (1998), Liberalizm polityczny, przeł. A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (2001a), Collected Papers, red. S. Freeman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2001b), Prawo ludów. O idei publicznego rozumu raz jeszcze, w: tenże, Prawo ludów, przeł. M. Kozłowski, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Rawls J. (2003), Justice as Fairness. A Restatement, red. E. Kelly, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2009), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, S. Szymański, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Ricoeur P. (2018), O sobie samym jako innym, przeł. B. Chełstowski, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Scanlon T.M. (2003), Rawls on Justification, w: S. Freeman (red.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Velasquez M. (1998), Business Ethics. Concepts and Cases, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice‑Hall.
Weber M. (2010), Etyka protestancka a duch kapitalizmu, przeł. B. Baran, P. Miziński, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Weithman P. (2013), Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls’s Political Turn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams H.L. (2014), The Law of Peoples, w: J. Mandle, D. Reidy (red.), A Companion to Rawls, Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, Malden, MA: Wiley‑Blackwell.
Ziembiński Z. (1992), O pojmowaniu sprawiedliwości, Lublin: Daimonion.

Authors and Affiliations

Dariusz Dańkowski SJ

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie, ul. Kopernika 26, 31‑501 Kraków

John Rawls on the constitutional theory of civil disobedience

Alfred Marek Wierzbicki

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 57-72 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138974

Keywords civil disobedience Constitution duty justice normative ethics virtue ethics

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

John Rawls develops and precisely defines the concept of civil disobedience which had emerged from the American tradition of democracy and was already discussed in the 19th century by H.D. Thoreau. It is a part of a theory of ‘justice as fairness’ and it rigidly supports the conditions of resistance to the state employed in the effort to sustain moral order in the practice of democracy. This effort cannot be interpreted as a revolutionary rebellion against the state and law, for it aspires to implement a kind of reform which aims at a restoration of justice whenever it is deeply neglected or violated. In the nub of this theory lies the claim of the importance of the civil conscience as formed by the principles of constitution which reflect the principles of justice without presupposing an extended theory of good. The normative paradigm of ethics, according to which Rawls presents his theory of justice, should be complemented by virtue ethics, argues the author, and points to that the absence of civil virtues manifested deplorably in the present weakness of liberal democracy in the face of the growing pressure from populism.

Bibliography

Anscombe G.E.M. (2010), Nowożytna filozofia moralności, przeł. M. Roszyk, „Ethos” 4 (92).
Arendt H. (1969), On Violence, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Arendt H. (1991), O rewolucji, przeł. M. Godyń, Kraków: Wydawnictwo X – Dom Wydawniczy Totus.
Arendt H. (1993), Korzenie totalitaryzmu, przeł. M. Szawiel, D. Grinberg, Warszawa: Niezależna Oficyna Wydawnicza.
Hobbes T. (2005), Lewiatan, przeł. Cz. Znamierowski, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Lazari‑Pawłowska I. (1990), Etyczne aspekty obywatelskiego sprzeciwu, „Etyka” 25.
Porębski Cz. (1999), Umowa społeczna. Renesans idei, Kraków: Znak.
Rawls J. (1994), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (1998), Liberalizm polityczny, przeł. A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (2010), Wykłady z historii filozofii polityki, przeł. S. Szymański, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
Snyder T. (2019), Droga do niewolności. Rosja, Europa, Ameryka, przeł. B. Pietrzyk, Kraków: Znak.
Szutta N. (2017), Czy istnieje coś, co zwiemy moralnym charakterem i cnotą?, Lublin: Academicon.
Thoreau H.D. (1983), Obywatelskie nieposłuszeństwo, w: tenże, Życie bez zasad. Eseje, przeł. H. Cieplińska, Warszawa: Czytelnik.
Wierzbicki A.M. (1992), The Ethics of Struggle for Liberation, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Wierzbicki A.M. (2021), Osoba i moralność, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Wojtyła K. (1991), Człowiek w polu odpowiedzialności, Rzym – Lublin: Instytut Jana Pawła II KUL.

Authors and Affiliations

Alfred Marek Wierzbicki

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Wydział Filozofii, Al. Racławickie 14, 20‑950 Lublin

Rawls and feminist critics

Magdalena Środa

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 73-90 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138975

Keywords care feminism gender individual justice liberalism social contract

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In this article I present an outline of selected feminist critiques of John Rawls’s theory. I limit myself to four problems: the concept of the social contract and the individual (C. Pateman), the concept of moral development (C. Gilligan) and the critique of the concept of justice (M. Nussbaum, N. Fraser). I offer an opinion on the undiminished relevance of the problems posed by these feminists.

Bibliography

Fraser N. (2014), Drogi feminizmu. Od kapitalizmu państwowego do neoliberalnego kryzysu, przeł. A. Weseli, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej.
Freud Z. (1992), Kilka psychologicznych skutków anatomicznej różnicy płci, w: tenże, Życie seksualne, przeł. E. Abłamowicz, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Gilligan C. (2015), Innym głosem. Teoria psychologiczna a rozwój kobiet, przeł. B. Szelewa, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej.
Kymlicka W. (2009), Współczesna filozofia polityczna, przeł. A. Pawelec, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
MacKinnon C. (1987), Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Noddings N. (1984), Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings N. (1989), Women and Evil, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nussbaum M. (1988), Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution, „Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy”, suppl. vol., s. 145–184.
Nussbaum M. (1990), Aristotelian Social Democracy, w: R.B. Douglass, G.M. Mara, H.S. Richardson (red.), Liberalism and the Good, New York – London: Routledge, s. 203–252.
Nussbaum M. (2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum M. (2006), Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Nussbaum M. (2013), Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Nussbaum M. (2016), Gniew i wybaczenie, przeł. J. Kolczyńska, Warszawa: Zielone Drzewo.
Okin S.M. (1989), Justice, Gender and the Family, New York: Basic Books.
Pateman C. (2014), Kontrakt płci, przeł. J. Mikos, Warszawa: Czarna Owca.
Radcliffe Richards J. (1980), The Sceptical Feminist: A Philosophical Enquiry, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rawls J. (1994), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (1998), Liberalizm polityczny, przeł. A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (2001), Prawo ludów, przeł. M. Kozłowski, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Wysobłocki T. (2014), Obywatelki. Kobiety w przestrzeni publicznej we Francji przełomu wieków XVIII i XIX, Kraków: Universitas.

Authors and Affiliations

Magdalena Środa

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Filozofii, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00‑927 Warszawa

A slightly lifted veil of ignorance

Artur Szutta

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 363-379 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138993

Keywords original position principles of justice J. Rawls veil of ignorance

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article discusses Rawls’s idea of the original position. I present two arguments in support of the claim that it is impossible to meet the necessary conditions (proposed by Rawls) for recreating the reasoning that presumably is performed in the original position. I claim therefore that the idea of the original position cannot fulfil its function of justifying the principles of justice. As the solution to the problem I propose a modified version of the original position argument, which can be labeled ‘a slightly lifted veil of ignorance’.

Bibliography

Bostrom N. (2003), Are you living in a computer simulation?, „Philosophical Quarterly” 53, s. 243–255.
Chyrowicz B. (2021), Widok stąd. Dlaczego działamy tak, a nie inaczej?, Kraków: Znak.
Dworkin R. (1977), Justice as Rights, w: tenże, Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, s. 150–183.
Freeman S. (2007), Rawls, London – New York: Routledge.
Graham P. (2007), Rawls, Oxford: Oneworld.
Hare R.M. (1973), Rawls’s Theory of Justice II, „The Philosophical Quarterly” 23, s. 241–252.
Hinton T. (2015), Introduction, w: tenże (red.), The Original Position, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 1–17.
Kukathas Ch., Pettit P. (1990), Rawls:„A Theory of Justice” and its Critics, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levin M. (1978), The Problem of Knowledge in the Original Position, „Auslegung: A Journal of Philosophy” 5 (3), s. 147–159.
Mulhall A., Swift A. (1996), Liberals and Communitarians, wyd. II, Oxford – Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Rawls J. (1999), Theory of Justice. Revised Edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2001a), Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics, w: tenże, Collected Papers, red. S. Freeman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, s. 1–19.
Rawls J. (2001b), The Independence of Moral Theory, w: tenże, Collected Papers, red. S. Freeman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, s. 286–302.
Rawls J. (2001c), Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical, w: tenże, Collected Papers, red. S. Freeman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, s. 388–414.
Rawls J. (2005), Political Liberalism. Expanded Edition, New York: Columbia University Press.
Sandel M. (2004), Republika proceduralna i nieuwarunkowana jaźń, przeł. P. Rymarczyk, w: P. Śpiewak (red.), Komunitarianie. Wybór tekstów, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia, s. 71–90.
Sandel M. (2009), Liberalizm a granice sprawiedliwości, przeł. A. Grobler, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
Singer P., de Lazari‑Radek K. (2013), Konsekwencjalizm a tajemnica: obrona ezoterycznej moralności, „Analiza i Egzystencja” 22, s. 5–32.
Szutta A. (2010), Cnota rozsądności, w: N. Szutta (red.), Współczesna etyka cnót: możliwości i ograniczenia, Warszawa: Semper, s. 195–204.
Szutta A. (2013), Metoda refleksyjnej równowagi. Część I: prezentacja metody, „Diametros” 37, s. 129–149.
Szutta A. (2015), W poszukiwaniu zasad sprawiedliwości, „Filozofuj!” 5, s. 29–30.
Szutta A. (2018), Intuicje moralne. O poznaniu dobra i zła, Lublin: Academicon.
Śpiewak P. (red.) (2004), Komunitarianie. Wybór tekstów, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.

Authors and Affiliations

Artur Szutta

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Uniwersytet Gdański, ul. J. Bażyńskiego 4, 80‑309 Gdańsk

Can we be happy in a poorly‑ordered society, or what is the value of self‑respect according to John Rawls?

Barbara Grabowska

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 107-120 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138977

Keywords happiness justice J. Rawls self‑respect sense of self‑worth

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

John Rawls claims that self‑respect is arguably the most important of social primary goods. It has two aspects: the sense of self‑worth and confidence in one’s abilities. Both attitudes presuppose formation and completion of a reasonable life plan. Realization of a life plan is a stepping stone to personal achievement and happiness. Self‑respect implies acceptance of two rules of justice. Those rules presuppose an equal distribution of the social prerequisites for the growth of self‑respect. Self‑respect supports the sense of justice as well as political and social stability. A well‑ordered society makes it possible for everyone to achieve self‑respect through realization of an ambitious life plan, in accordance with Aristotelian conception of virtue. Virtue is also a prerequisite of happiness. In a poorly‑ordered society achievement of happiness is thwarted by socio‑economic inequality and artificial restrictions on selection of the life plans.

Bibliography

Alexy R. (1987), John Rawls’ Theorie der Grundfreiheiten, w: W. Hinsch (red.), Zur Idee des politischen Liberalismus. John Rawls in der Diskussion, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Chmielewski A. (2001), Społeczeństwo otwarte czy wspólnota?, Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza Arboretum.
Fukuyama F. (2004), Koniec człowieka, przeł. B. Pietrzyk, Kraków: Znak.
Gawkowska A. (2004), Biorąc wspólnotę poważnie. Komunitariańskie krytyki liberalizmu, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
Kukathas Ch., Pettit Ph. (1998), Rawls: „A Theory of Justice” and its Critics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Leschke M. (1995), Die Beiträge von John Rawls und James Buchanan zum Aufbau einer demokratischen Grundordnung, w: I. Pies, M. Leschke (red.), John Rawls’ politischer Liberalismus, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Prostak R. (2004), Rzecz o sprawiedliwości. Komunitarystyczna krytyka współczesnego liberalizmu amerykańskiego, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskie-go.
Rau Z. (2008), Zapomniana wolność. W poszukiwaniu historycznych podstaw liberalizmu, Warszawa: Scholar.
Rawls J. (1994), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (1998), Liberalizm polityczny, przeł. A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Zink J.R. (2011), Reconsidering the Role of Self‑Respect in Rawls’s „A Theory of Justice”, „The Journal of Politics” 73 (2), s. 331–344.

Authors and Affiliations

Barbara Grabowska

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, Instytut Filozofii, ul. Fosa Staromiejska 1a, 87‑100 Toruń

The “Lessons of Nuremberg”: Their Use and Abuse in the Current Russia-Ukraine War

Anastasiia Vorobiova

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2022 | No XLII | 55-82 | DOI: 10.24425/pyil.2023.147170

Keywords Russia memory laws Nuremberg IMT victor’s justice

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The Russian aggression against Ukraine is heavily influenced by the memory of World War II (WWII), used by the Russian Federation as a consolidation tool to mobilise Russian society for the fight against a “neo-Nazi Ukraine”. Since 2014 Russia has adopted a set of legislative initiatives aiming to preserve a government-prescribed narrative about the exceptionally heroic role of the USSR in WWII and prohibiting any other interpretation under the threat of criminal and administrative sanctions. Both laws are using the decision of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) as a reference point to justify and legally substantiate such an interpretation, as the USSR was one of “victorious” nations which rendered justice against the Nazis in 1946. This article aims to show how the IMT rulings have been turned into an instrument of Russian propaganda and which lessons can be learned for the future of international tribunals, as well as examines the overall Ukrainian quest for Russian accountability.

Authors and Affiliations

Anastasiia Vorobiova

1 2

e-mail:

ORCID:

Poznań Human Rights Centre
Institute of Legal Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Patterns of Democracy in the Case Law of the EU Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights

Stefania Ninatti Maurizio Arcari

Polish Yearbook of International Law | No XXXV | DOI: 10.7420/pyil2015f

Keywords CJEU democracy European Union Court of Justice of the European Union European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article attempts to discover the key elements of the democratic principle, as described by the judges sitting in Luxembourg and Strasbourg, whose case law reveals the underlying idea of democracy at the supranational level. Until recently the debate on democracy was limited to the national level. But things are changing, and this article shows the gradual emergence of a process led by supranational courts, in which the application of the democratic principle finds multiple grades and variations. In this way the supranational/international courts have opened a new chapter in the process of constitutionalization of international law.

Authors and Affiliations

Stefania Ninatti

Maurizio Arcari

EU Values and Constitutional Pluralism: The EU System of Fundamenta Rights Protection

Koen Lenaerts

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2014 | No XXXIV | DOI: 10.7420/pyil2014g

Keywords Charter of Fundamental Rights CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union EU European Union fundamental right

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This article seeks to explore whether the EU system of fundamental rights protection allows room for constitutional pluralism. By looking at recent developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court of Justice), it is submitted that the Court has answered that question in the affirmative, thereby respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of Europe as well as their national identities. The application of the Charter does not rule out a cumulative application of fundamental rights. That being said, pluralism is not absolute, but must be weighed against the indivisible and universal values on which the European Union is founded. Logically, the question that arises is how we order pluralism. In this regard, I shall argue that it is not for the Court of Justice to decide when an EU uniform standard of fundamental rights protection is to replace (or coexist with) national standards. That decision is for the EU political institutions to adopt, since they enjoy the necessary democratic legitimacy to determine the circumstances under which the exercise of a fundamental right is to be limited for reasons of public interest. However, this deference to the EU political branches does not mean that EU legislative decisions are immune from judicial review. On the contrary, cases such as Schwarz and Digital Rights demonstrate that the Court of Justice is firmly committed to examining whether those legislative choices comply with primary EU law, and notably with the Charter. In this regard, when interpreting the provisions of the Charter, the Court of Justice – in dialogue with national courts and, in particular, constitutional courts – operates as the guarantor of the rule of law within the EU, of which fundamental rights are part and parcel. It is thus for those courts to make sure that each and every EU citizen enjoys a sphere of individual liberty which must, as defined by the Charter, remain free from public interferences.

Authors and Affiliations

Koen Lenaerts

Reckoning with the Communist Past in Poland Thirty Years After the Regime Change in the Light of the European Convention on Human Rights

Anna Wójcik

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2019 | No XXXIX | 135-157 | DOI: 10.24425/pyil.2020.134479

Keywords decommunisation European Convention on Human Rights Poland reduction of retirement pensions transitional justice

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article discusses the point of interconnection between historical policy and international human rights law standards on the example of a so-called decommunisation Act enacted in Poland in 2016 that reduces retirement pensions and other benefits to individuals who were employed or in service in selected state formations and institutions in 1944-1990, amending the Act adopted in 2009. The Act of 16 December 2016 is analyzed in the light of the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including relevant standards on coming to terms with the past as an element of transitional justice. The examination concludes that there is a discrepancy between the rationale for adopting this legislation in Poland, namely to reckon with the communist past and as such increase social trust in state institutions, and the legal solutions contained in the 2016 Act.

Authors and Affiliations

Anna Wójcik

The execution of European Arrest Warrants issued by Polish courts in the context of the CJEU Rule of Law case law

Przemysław Saganek

Polish Yearbook of International Law | 2020 | No XL | 275-295 | DOI: 10.24425/pyil.2021.138441

Keywords Court of Justice of the European Union European Arrest Warrant EAW Poland rule of law

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The case law of the CJEU dealing with the rule of law touches upon the question of execution of European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) issued by Polish courts. The year 2020 witnessed the second important judgment of the CJEU in this respect (the Dutch case). As in its 2018 predecessor (the Irish case), the CJEU excluded the possibility of overt denial of all EAWs issued by Polish courts. Instead it insists on a two-step examination, comprising not only a general evaluation but also the examination of the individual situation of a requested person. It remains to be seen whether this is a promise of armistice in the CJEU’s approach to Poland, although this is not believed by the author of the text.

Authors and Affiliations

Przemysław Saganek

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

Associate Professor (dr. hab.), Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw

When the ethical is unethical and the unethical is ethical: Cultural Relativism in Ethical Decision-Making

Seth Oppong

Polish Psychological Bulletin | 2019 | vol. 50 | No 1 | 18-28 | DOI: 10.24425/ppb.2019.126014

Keywords cultural relativism ethics ethical decision-making justice perspective care perspective ethical dilemmas

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

It is nearly impossible to study behaviour effectively without any reference to its context. This is because it is generally known in the psychological literature that behaviour is partially a product of its environment. This suggests that many behavioural processes may be universal but there are significant variations in their manifestations. For instance, love may be a universal process but its manifestation varies from one society to another. Given that ethical decision-making is a behavioural process, it stands to reason that its manifestation will vary from one culture to another. It is against this premise that this paper seeks to demonstrate that despite the existence of the ‘universal’ normative ethical principles, ethical decisions will be expected to vary across cultural space and even evolve with time. This paper achieves this objective by employing typical ethical dilemmas that Ghanaian psychologists and other health professionals encounter to show how and why what is ethical in one culture becomes unethical in the Ghanaian context and what is unethical in the Ghanaian context becomes ethical in another culture.

Authors and Affiliations

Seth Oppong

‘Rational’ and ‘reasonable’ in the context of John Rawls’s thought

Ryszard Kleszcz

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 347-362 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138992

Keywords concept of justice Ch. Perelman philosophy of action „Political Liberalism” rational J. Rawls reasonable terminological analyses

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The issue of rationality and the term itself appear in the works of John Rawls, for instance in his famous volume A Theory of Justice. At the same time, in another of his books, Political Liberalism, we can find not only the correlated terms ‘rational’, but also the term ‘reasonable’. In that volume Rawls enlightens their meaning. In this article, the author analyses the terms mentioned more closely and reflects on their use in various contexts. The explanatory hypothesis adopted by the author is that the use of these two terms, not just one of them, may enrich our conceptual network and increase the possibilities of analysing the sphere of human action. The aim of the analyses is to confirm this hypothesis and to extract the specific sense of the term ‘reasonable’, and of its use, especially in Rawls’s Political Liberalism.

Bibliography

Arystoteles (1982), Etyka nikomachejska, przeł. D. Gromska, wyd. 2, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Audi R. (2001), The Architecture of Reason. The Structure and Substance of Rationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Audi R. (red.) (1998), Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Golden J.L., Pilotta J.J. (red.) (1986), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Honderich T. (1999), Encyklopedia filozofii, t. II, przeł. J. Łoziński, Poznań: Zysk i S‑ka.
Höffe O. (1995), Immanuel Kant, przeł. A.M. Kaniowski, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Jolivet R. (1966), Vocabulaire de la Philosophie, Lyon: Emmanuel Vitte.
Kalinowski G. (1978), Logique et méthodologie juridique. Réflexions sur la rationalité formelle et non formelle en droit, „Archive de Philosophie de Droit” 23, s. 59–68.
Kant I. (1953), Uzasadnienie metafizyki moralności, przeł. M. Wartenberg, przekład przejrzał R. Ingarden, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Kant I. (1993), Religia w granicach samego rozumu, przeł. A. Bobko, Kraków: Znak.
Kleszcz R. (1998), O racjonalności. Studium epistemologiczno‑metodologiczne, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Kleszcz R. (2005), Teoria argumentacji, filozofia, logika. Uwagi o teorii Chaima Perelmana, „Forum Artis Rhetoricae” 1–2, s. 22–35.
Kleszcz R. (2007), O rozumie i wartościach, Łódź: Wydawnictwo WSHE w Łodzi.
Lalande A. (red.) (1960), Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Paris: PUF.
Laughlin S.K., Hughes D.T. (1986), The Rational and the Reasonable: Dialectic or Parallel Systems?, w: J.L. Golden, J.J. Pilotta (red.), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Perelman Ch. (1979a), Logique juridique. Nouvelle rhétorique, Paris: Dalloz.
Perelman Ch. (1979b), The Rational and the Reasonable, w: T.F. Geraets (red.), Rationality Today, Ottawa: The Ottawa University Press, s. 213–224.
Perelman Ch., Olbrechts‑Tyteca L. (1983), Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique, wyd. 4, Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Podsiad A. (2000), Słownik terminów i pojęć filozoficznych, Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax.
Rawls J. (1951), Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics, „The Philosophical Review” 60, s. 177–197.
Rawls J. (1994), Teoria sprawiedliwości [1971], przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (1998), Liberalizm polityczny [1993], przeł. A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rescher N. (1954), Reasonableness in ethics, „Philosophical Studies” 5, s. 58–62.
Sibley W.M. (1953), The Rational versus the Reasonable, „The Philosophical Review” LXII (4), s. 554–560.
Simpson J.A., Weiner E.S.C. (red.) (1991), The Oxford English Dictionary [cyt. jako: OED], Oxford: Clarendon Press, Vol. XIII.

Authors and Affiliations

Ryszard Kleszcz

1

e-mail: ryszard.kleszcz@uni.lodz.pl

ORCID:

Uniwersytet Łódzki, Instytut Filozofii, ul. Lindleya 3/5, 90-131 Łódź

Political conscience and its natural limits

Joanna Górnicka-Kalinowska

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria | 2021 | No 4 | 247-257 | DOI: 10.24425/pfns.2021.138985

Keywords institutions justice I. Kant law moral sensitivity rationality J. Rawls rules social contract state

Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Although John Rawls’s theory is an extensive project of the state structure which also discusses the functions of various democratic institutions, the reader tends naturally to look for something more, namely his opinions about human nature and the psychological underpinnings that ultimately determine men’s and women’s responsibilities in a democratic community. The clues offered by A Theory of Justice are disappointingly scarce, as they tend to blur the distinction between the descriptive and the normative aspects of the problem. Rawls’s analysis of such categories as moral sensitivity, or human motives, or social obligations do not take into account the natural limitations that typically accompany the demands formulated by the just state. Or, to put the same complaint differently, Rawls’s opinions about human nature sound unduly optimistic, if compared, for instance, with Kant’s moral theory to which he makes frequent references.

Bibliography

Feinberg J. (1975), Rawls and Intuitionism, w: N. Daniels (red.), Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on Rawls’ „A Theory of Justice”, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Frankfurt H.G. (1997), Wolność woli i pojęcie osoby, przeł. J. Nowotniak, w: J. Hołówka (red.), Filozofia moralności. Postanowienie i odpowiedzialność moralna, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Spacja – Fundacja Aletheia.
Hobbes Th. (2005), Lewiatan, przeł. Cz. Znamierowski, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Kant I. (2005a), Antropologia w ujęciu pragmatycznym, przeł. E. Drzazgowska, P. Sosnowska, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IFiS PAN.
Kant I. (2005b), Metafizyka moralności, przeł. E. Nowak, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
MacIntyre A. (2007), Czyja sprawiedliwość? Jaka racjonalność?, red. A. Chmielewski, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
Nagel Th. (1975), Rawls on Justice, w: N. Daniels (red.), Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on Rawls’ „A Theory of Justice”, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Rawls J. (1988), The Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good, „Philosophy & Public Affairs” 17 (4).
Rawls J. (1994), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (2010), Wykłady z historii filozofii polityki, przeł. S. Szymański, Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
Rousseau J.J. (1966), Umowa społeczna, przeł. A. Peretiatkowicz, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Authors and Affiliations

Joanna Górnicka-Kalinowska

1

e-mail:

ORCID:

prof. em., Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Filozofii, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00‑927 Warszawa

1
2

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more