Partiality and Justice

This work analysed the contemporary neocontractualist hypothesis, especially the idea of impartiality as a premise for social justice. Faced with what has been claimed to be the insufficiency of this perspective, the communitarian critiques that have pointed out some limits to the liberal-contractualist hypothesis have been analysed. With John Rawls as the theoretical framework for moral neocontractualism, it was shown that the communitarian critiques that emphasised history and the relativisation of customs as the stakes for a moral philosophy left aside the socio-economic aspects that underpin social relations. In this sense, by turning to the positive aspects of neocontractualism, the hypothesis of the social division of labour was affirmed as a founding and theoretical act for the analysis of social injustices that does not require the idea of impartiality.

Autorentext

PhD in Philosophy from UFRJ. PhD in Social Sciences from PUC-Rio. Post-doctorate in Gender Studies and Human Rights from the PNPD/Capes programme at the UNESA Law Department. Researcher in the areas of gender theory, political theory and human rights.