The most promising recent attempt to rethink both Discourse Ethics (especially Rawls and Habermas) and Kantian deontology is found in the work of Rainer Forst. This paper suggests the strength of the latter lies in its shift from a theory of justice to a theory of injustice: from the question of what legitimates claims that seek normative consensus, to claims that argue the normative status quo is problematic. In Forst’s idiom: claims arguing the justifications behind that status quo are unacceptable. (...) Yet the association of injustice with justificatory inequality—disparities in people’s capacity to either demand or present reasons—ends up tracking not injustice but mere disagreement. In so doing this theory effectively exposes the broader problem of discourse ethics: its conception of injustice as a (negative) quality of discursive conduct rather than of social relations. At the same time, Forst’s theory also effectively implies a more wholesale rejection of the deontological interpretation of dignity than his reading of Kant suggests. This dual-impasse points to an alternative albeit latent conception of injustice, offering a more promising starting-point for Critical Theory: Injustice understood not as dignity-violations, but as forms of social interdependence predicated on turning certain people systemically vulnerable. (shrink)

O artigo visa discutir o papel que a obra de John Rawls possui para o projeto teórico de Rainer Forst. Trata-se de acompanharas principaisleituras que Forst realiza sobre esse autor e discutir algumas consequências que podem ser delas depreendidas para seu modelo crítico. Assim, em primeiro lugar, discute-se a tentativa de Forst em aproximar os critérios de reciprocidade e universalidade, de seu princípio de justificação, à teoria de Rawls, ao mesmo tempo em que acusa Rawls de que sua configuração da (...) posição original atribui conteúdos substantivos aos princípios de justiça, que, na verdade, só poderiam ser concebidos comoum princípio fundamental de justificação (I). Em seguida, observa-se a leitura que Forst realiza sobre o debate entre Habermas e Rawls, a fim de extrair uma alternativa a ambos. Novamente Forst faz um movimento de aproximação e crítica a Rawls (II). Em um terceiro momento, examina-se outra tentativa de aproximação e superação à obra de Rawls, mas dessa vezatravés da distinção entre duas imagens da justiça(III). Por fim, o artigo apresenta duas interpretações gerais sobe essas leituras: que existem certas constantes nos argumentos que unem e que pretendem superar Rawls; e que contém possíveis problemas,com consequências que ocasionam certos entraves para sua teoriaem sua pretensão de ser crítica. (shrink)

Scholars disagree about the proper justification of human rights and which rights qualify as human rights. While some argue for a very limited set of human rights, others defend more comprehensive accounts. In this paper I suggest that a defence of a comprehensive set of human rights can be strengthened by combining constructivist deontological and well-being based teleological justifications. To this end, I discuss two prominent proponents of constructivism and the well-being approach: Rainer Forst and Simon Caney. Forst criticises teleological (...) justifications for grounding human rights in non-universalizable conceptions of the good, such as autonomy, that can reasonably be rejected by others. Constructivism, in contrast, does not rest on any particular idea of the good life and thus allows for greater ethical plurality. I reject this specific criticism, arguing that Caney’s approach ultimately allows for the same plurality. I also highlight that constructivism on its own cannot justify rights of people who are not (yet) able to reason. The well-being approach provides substantive arguments for the rights of these individuals. However, these arguments are made with the framework provided by constructivism. I hold, contra Caney, that Forst’s right to justification is primary in that it is the unavoidable basis from which justice issues can be dealt with in a reasonable way and that the main function of human rights is to protect the equal moral status of persons. I conclude that Forst’s constructivist and Caney’s well-being approach are complementary rather than rivalrous: when combined they provide a more robust justification for a comprehensive set of human rights than considered separately. (shrink)