| Summary: | Submitted by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2017-06-30T17:32:31Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
DIS_FELIPE_HELD_IZQUIERDO_COMPLETO.pdf: 537887 bytes, checksum: 63240f048574b851e3eef476ea88e1e3 (MD5) === Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-30T17:32:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
DIS_FELIPE_HELD_IZQUIERDO_COMPLETO.pdf: 537887 bytes, checksum: 63240f048574b851e3eef476ea88e1e3 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2017-03-29 === Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES === I will begin by introducing the proceduralist approach, as seen in theories of justification of the democratic procedure that seek normative conditions of intrinsic value to the procedure, so that it remains, in the end, justified. The purely proceduralist approach has it that a decision-making procedure, under due democratic constrictions, confers legitimacy to its results: by means of strictly procedural conditions, i.e. equality of participation, results are considered legitimate. Thus, what needs establishing, is that, though necessary to the procedure?s justification, conditions of equal participation are not sufficient to the legitimacy of results. Although procedural conditions are indeed necessary so that there be a public justification of the procedure, there is a relevant relation between results and procedure which pure proceduralist theory wills away. The pressupositions that lead to the kind of subjective justification entailed do not exclude the necessity of there being also objective reasons on which the justification must turn. For, if not, it follows that results are being arbitrarily legitimized, due to the sufficiency of a strictly procedural claim to justification. In order to attain to the purported theoretical end of this work, I will begin by assessing different types of proceduralism, leading lastly to pure proceduralism. Leaving from the implicature relation established by this kind of proceduralism between justification and legitimation, I will present instrumentalism as the inverse relation, also displaying its faults. In the follow up and thence towards the conclusion it will be shown why subjective justification of the sort made sufficient by pure proceduralism must not be so, and why there is a need for objective reasons so that the results of a democratic procedure can be considered legitimate in non-arbitrary fashion. === Neste trabalho, abordarei a proposta procedimentalista, como vista em teorias de justifica??o do procedimento democr?tico, as quais buscam condi??es normativas de valor instr?nseco ao procedimento, a fim de justific?-lo. A proposta procedimentalista pura sustenta que um procedimento para tomada de decis?es, sob as devidas restri??es democr?ticas, confere legitimidade a seus resultados: atrav?s do uso de condi??es procedimentais, i.e. de igualdade de participa??o, resultados s?o considerados leg?timos. Assim, quer-se estabelecer que, apesar de necess?rias ? justifica??o do procedimento, condi??es de participa??o igualit?ria n?o s?o suficientes para que haja legitima??o de resultados. Conquanto necess?rias condi??es procedimentais ditas de valor intr?nseco, para que haja justifica??o p?blica do procedimento, essa deve contemplar uma rela??o entre resultados e procedimento a qual ? relevada pelo procedimentalismo puro. As pressuposi??es que levam a esse tipo de justifica??o subjetiva n?o excluem a necessidade de o procedimento estar justificado tamb?m segundo raz?es objetivas. Caso contr?rio, ter-se-ia a possibilidade de arbitrariedade de legitima??o, a partir da presun??o de sufici?ncia de raz?es subjetivas. A fim de atingir-se o desiderato te?rico aqui proposto, come?arei pela abordagem feita pelos diferentes tipos de procedimentalismo, chegando por fim ao puro. Partindo da rela??o de implica??o estabelecida por esse procedimentalismo entre justifica??o e legitima??o, apresentarei o instrumentalismo como o caminho inverso, apresentando suas falhas. Em seguida, e da? at? a conclus?o do trabalho, mostrarei por que a justifica??o subjetiva n?o ? suficiente e o porque de necessitar-se tamb?m de raz?es objetivas para que os resultados de um procedimento democr?tico serem considerados leg?timos de maneira n?o arbitr?ria.
|
|---|
