Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ary Salgueiro Euclides de AraÃjo
Data de Publicação: 2013
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFC
Texto Completo: http://www.teses.ufc.br/tde_busca/arquivo.php?codArquivo=10336
Resumo: For Habermas, religious and metaphysical doctrines lost centrality in modern societies, which is the reason why the critical and reflexive potentials of language were released at the cost of giving rise to a irreconciliable plurality of lifeforms. Democracy must be the space where pluralism reflects the freedom of everyone to develop her cultural potentials without enduring opression, but also without control of other conceptions of thought and action. The duty of tolerance appears in this context when there is no expectation of agreement on ethical evaluative criteria of the good life and means that agents must resort to a moral agreement on the intersubjectively valid behaviour on the basis of assumptions of a human rights regime, which includes cultural rights. The research begins by inserting tolerance into the political context of the theory of normative models of democracy by Habermas, these models themselves involved in the debate between liberal and communitarians, more specifically having liberalism represented by John Rawls on the one side, and republicanism by Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor on the other. By studying Habermas theories of communicative rationality, of modernity and of discourse, one can find support for overcoming liberal and republican views in the viewpoint of a deliberative democracy based on discourses. As Habermas considers democracy a process, he longs to include difference without imposing cultural and historical conceptions of the good on the procedural communicative normative standards. By integrating the perspective of the right in deliberative debates Habermas does not keep them away from democractic will and collective values. The liberal principles of the priority of the right over the good and of ethical neutrality are determined by collective processes of will and opinion formation. In this context, Habermas conception of tolerance permitts citizens to reject each otherÂs life forms, alhtough imposing them to do it in a way that does not contradict moral standards of respect, which avoid discrimiation and authorize the self-realization of cultural life forms compatible with equal liberties for all; they are also obligated to coexist with the rejected life form if it is morally protected by what is stablished in a public consensus, deliberatively reached with recourse of discourses in the public spheres.
id UFC_09aa3049ed9bb484fea050a6810392dd
oai_identifier_str oai:www.teses.ufc.br:7048
network_acronym_str UFC
network_name_str Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFC
spelling info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisPluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen HabermasPluralism, democracy and conception of tolerance in JÃrgen Habermas theory2013-07-30Manfredo AraÃjo de Oliveira03274845353Regenaldo Rodrigues da Costa23081139368Luiz Felipe Netto de Andrade e Silva Sahd54019303991http://lattes.cnpq.br/4699855762198405 02878557328Ary Salgueiro Euclides de AraÃjoUniversidade Federal do CearÃPrograma de PÃs-GraduaÃÃo em FilosofiaUFCBRPluralismo TolerÃncia JÃrgen HabermasPluralism Tolerance JÃrgen HabermasFILOSOFIAFor Habermas, religious and metaphysical doctrines lost centrality in modern societies, which is the reason why the critical and reflexive potentials of language were released at the cost of giving rise to a irreconciliable plurality of lifeforms. Democracy must be the space where pluralism reflects the freedom of everyone to develop her cultural potentials without enduring opression, but also without control of other conceptions of thought and action. The duty of tolerance appears in this context when there is no expectation of agreement on ethical evaluative criteria of the good life and means that agents must resort to a moral agreement on the intersubjectively valid behaviour on the basis of assumptions of a human rights regime, which includes cultural rights. The research begins by inserting tolerance into the political context of the theory of normative models of democracy by Habermas, these models themselves involved in the debate between liberal and communitarians, more specifically having liberalism represented by John Rawls on the one side, and republicanism by Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor on the other. By studying Habermas theories of communicative rationality, of modernity and of discourse, one can find support for overcoming liberal and republican views in the viewpoint of a deliberative democracy based on discourses. As Habermas considers democracy a process, he longs to include difference without imposing cultural and historical conceptions of the good on the procedural communicative normative standards. By integrating the perspective of the right in deliberative debates Habermas does not keep them away from democractic will and collective values. The liberal principles of the priority of the right over the good and of ethical neutrality are determined by collective processes of will and opinion formation. In this context, Habermas conception of tolerance permitts citizens to reject each otherÂs life forms, alhtough imposing them to do it in a way that does not contradict moral standards of respect, which avoid discrimiation and authorize the self-realization of cultural life forms compatible with equal liberties for all; they are also obligated to coexist with the rejected life form if it is morally protected by what is stablished in a public consensus, deliberatively reached with recourse of discourses in the public spheres.Para Habermas, sociedades modernas perderam a centralidade de doutrinas religiosas e metafÃsicas, liberando os potenciais de uma linguagem crÃtica e reflexiva, ao preÃo, porÃm, de uma inconciliÃvel pluralidade de formas de vida. A democracia deve ser o espaÃo onde o pluralismo reflita a liberdade de cada um em desenvolver seus potenciais culturais, sem a opressÃo contra suas necessidades, mas sem permitir-lhe o controle de outras concepÃÃes do pensar e do agir. O dever de tolerÃncia surge, neste quadro, quando nÃo hà expectativa de um acordo acerca dos critÃrios Ãtico-valorativos da boa vida, recorrendo os agentes a um consenso moral acerca do comportamento intersubjetivamente vÃlido segundo os pressupostos de uma ordem de direitos humanos, da qual fazem parte direitos culturais. Iniciamos a investigaÃÃo desta teoria colocando a tolerÃncia dentro do contexto polÃtico da teoria dos modelos normativos de democracia em Habermas, associando-os ao debate entre liberais e comunitaristas, mais especificamente, entendendo o liberalismo a partir de John Rawls, de um lado, e o republicanismo a partir de Michael Sandel e Charles Taylor, de outro. Ao investigarmos as teorias de Habermas sobre a racionalidade comunicativa, a teoria da modernidade e a teoria do discurso, encontramos o suporte para superar visÃes liberais e republicanas a partir do ponto de vista de uma democracia deliberativa, baseada em discursos. Ao entender a democracia enquanto um processo, Habermas procura incluir a diferenÃa, sem submeter padrÃes comunicativos procedimentais e a proteÃÃo moral do indivÃduo Ãs concepÃÃes histÃrico-culturais do Bom; integrando a perspectiva do Justo aos debates deliberativos, Habermas nÃo os fixa para longe da vontade democrÃtica nem dos valores coletivos. Os princÃpios liberais da Prioridade do Justo sobre o Bom e da neutralidade Ãtica sÃo determinados a partir de processos coletivos de formaÃÃo da opiniÃo e da vontade. Neste contexto, a concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em Habermas permite que cidadÃos rejeitem a forma de vida uns dos outros, mas obriga-os a fazÃ-lo de modo que nÃo contrarie padrÃes morais de respeito que evitam a discriminaÃÃo, permitindo a autorrealizaÃÃo das formas de vida culturais compatÃveis com as liberdades de todos; ademais, sÃo obrigados a aceitar conviver com a forma de vida rejeitada, se esta for moralmente protegida, segundo o que se estabelece em um consenso pÃblico, deliberativamente alcanÃado a partir dos discursos nas esferas pÃblicas.CoordenaÃÃo de AperfeiÃoamento de Pessoal de NÃvel Superiorhttp://www.teses.ufc.br/tde_busca/arquivo.php?codArquivo=10336application/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessporreponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFCinstname:Universidade Federal do Cearáinstacron:UFC2019-01-21T11:23:47Zmail@mail.com -
dc.title.pt.fl_str_mv Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas
dc.title.alternative.en.fl_str_mv Pluralism, democracy and conception of tolerance in JÃrgen Habermas theory
title Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas
spellingShingle Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas
Ary Salgueiro Euclides de AraÃjo
Pluralismo
TolerÃncia
JÃrgen Habermas
Pluralism
Tolerance
JÃrgen Habermas
FILOSOFIA
title_short Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas
title_full Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas
title_fullStr Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas
title_full_unstemmed Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas
title_sort Pluralismo, democracia e concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em JÃrgen Habermas
author Ary Salgueiro Euclides de AraÃjo
author_facet Ary Salgueiro Euclides de AraÃjo
author_role author
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv Manfredo AraÃjo de Oliveira
dc.contributor.advisor1ID.fl_str_mv 03274845353
dc.contributor.referee1.fl_str_mv Regenaldo Rodrigues da Costa
dc.contributor.referee1ID.fl_str_mv 23081139368
dc.contributor.referee2.fl_str_mv Luiz Felipe Netto de Andrade e Silva Sahd
dc.contributor.referee2ID.fl_str_mv 54019303991
dc.contributor.referee2Lattes.fl_str_mv http://lattes.cnpq.br/4699855762198405
dc.contributor.authorID.fl_str_mv 02878557328
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ary Salgueiro Euclides de AraÃjo
contributor_str_mv Manfredo AraÃjo de Oliveira
Regenaldo Rodrigues da Costa
Luiz Felipe Netto de Andrade e Silva Sahd
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Pluralismo
TolerÃncia
JÃrgen Habermas
topic Pluralismo
TolerÃncia
JÃrgen Habermas
Pluralism
Tolerance
JÃrgen Habermas
FILOSOFIA
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Pluralism
Tolerance
JÃrgen Habermas
dc.subject.cnpq.fl_str_mv FILOSOFIA
dc.description.sponsorship.fl_txt_mv CoordenaÃÃo de AperfeiÃoamento de Pessoal de NÃvel Superior
dc.description.abstract.por.fl_txt_mv For Habermas, religious and metaphysical doctrines lost centrality in modern societies, which is the reason why the critical and reflexive potentials of language were released at the cost of giving rise to a irreconciliable plurality of lifeforms. Democracy must be the space where pluralism reflects the freedom of everyone to develop her cultural potentials without enduring opression, but also without control of other conceptions of thought and action. The duty of tolerance appears in this context when there is no expectation of agreement on ethical evaluative criteria of the good life and means that agents must resort to a moral agreement on the intersubjectively valid behaviour on the basis of assumptions of a human rights regime, which includes cultural rights. The research begins by inserting tolerance into the political context of the theory of normative models of democracy by Habermas, these models themselves involved in the debate between liberal and communitarians, more specifically having liberalism represented by John Rawls on the one side, and republicanism by Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor on the other. By studying Habermas theories of communicative rationality, of modernity and of discourse, one can find support for overcoming liberal and republican views in the viewpoint of a deliberative democracy based on discourses. As Habermas considers democracy a process, he longs to include difference without imposing cultural and historical conceptions of the good on the procedural communicative normative standards. By integrating the perspective of the right in deliberative debates Habermas does not keep them away from democractic will and collective values. The liberal principles of the priority of the right over the good and of ethical neutrality are determined by collective processes of will and opinion formation. In this context, Habermas conception of tolerance permitts citizens to reject each otherÂs life forms, alhtough imposing them to do it in a way that does not contradict moral standards of respect, which avoid discrimiation and authorize the self-realization of cultural life forms compatible with equal liberties for all; they are also obligated to coexist with the rejected life form if it is morally protected by what is stablished in a public consensus, deliberatively reached with recourse of discourses in the public spheres.
Para Habermas, sociedades modernas perderam a centralidade de doutrinas religiosas e metafÃsicas, liberando os potenciais de uma linguagem crÃtica e reflexiva, ao preÃo, porÃm, de uma inconciliÃvel pluralidade de formas de vida. A democracia deve ser o espaÃo onde o pluralismo reflita a liberdade de cada um em desenvolver seus potenciais culturais, sem a opressÃo contra suas necessidades, mas sem permitir-lhe o controle de outras concepÃÃes do pensar e do agir. O dever de tolerÃncia surge, neste quadro, quando nÃo hà expectativa de um acordo acerca dos critÃrios Ãtico-valorativos da boa vida, recorrendo os agentes a um consenso moral acerca do comportamento intersubjetivamente vÃlido segundo os pressupostos de uma ordem de direitos humanos, da qual fazem parte direitos culturais. Iniciamos a investigaÃÃo desta teoria colocando a tolerÃncia dentro do contexto polÃtico da teoria dos modelos normativos de democracia em Habermas, associando-os ao debate entre liberais e comunitaristas, mais especificamente, entendendo o liberalismo a partir de John Rawls, de um lado, e o republicanismo a partir de Michael Sandel e Charles Taylor, de outro. Ao investigarmos as teorias de Habermas sobre a racionalidade comunicativa, a teoria da modernidade e a teoria do discurso, encontramos o suporte para superar visÃes liberais e republicanas a partir do ponto de vista de uma democracia deliberativa, baseada em discursos. Ao entender a democracia enquanto um processo, Habermas procura incluir a diferenÃa, sem submeter padrÃes comunicativos procedimentais e a proteÃÃo moral do indivÃduo Ãs concepÃÃes histÃrico-culturais do Bom; integrando a perspectiva do Justo aos debates deliberativos, Habermas nÃo os fixa para longe da vontade democrÃtica nem dos valores coletivos. Os princÃpios liberais da Prioridade do Justo sobre o Bom e da neutralidade Ãtica sÃo determinados a partir de processos coletivos de formaÃÃo da opiniÃo e da vontade. Neste contexto, a concepÃÃo de tolerÃncia em Habermas permite que cidadÃos rejeitem a forma de vida uns dos outros, mas obriga-os a fazÃ-lo de modo que nÃo contrarie padrÃes morais de respeito que evitam a discriminaÃÃo, permitindo a autorrealizaÃÃo das formas de vida culturais compatÃveis com as liberdades de todos; ademais, sÃo obrigados a aceitar conviver com a forma de vida rejeitada, se esta for moralmente protegida, segundo o que se estabelece em um consenso pÃblico, deliberativamente alcanÃado a partir dos discursos nas esferas pÃblicas.
description For Habermas, religious and metaphysical doctrines lost centrality in modern societies, which is the reason why the critical and reflexive potentials of language were released at the cost of giving rise to a irreconciliable plurality of lifeforms. Democracy must be the space where pluralism reflects the freedom of everyone to develop her cultural potentials without enduring opression, but also without control of other conceptions of thought and action. The duty of tolerance appears in this context when there is no expectation of agreement on ethical evaluative criteria of the good life and means that agents must resort to a moral agreement on the intersubjectively valid behaviour on the basis of assumptions of a human rights regime, which includes cultural rights. The research begins by inserting tolerance into the political context of the theory of normative models of democracy by Habermas, these models themselves involved in the debate between liberal and communitarians, more specifically having liberalism represented by John Rawls on the one side, and republicanism by Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor on the other. By studying Habermas theories of communicative rationality, of modernity and of discourse, one can find support for overcoming liberal and republican views in the viewpoint of a deliberative democracy based on discourses. As Habermas considers democracy a process, he longs to include difference without imposing cultural and historical conceptions of the good on the procedural communicative normative standards. By integrating the perspective of the right in deliberative debates Habermas does not keep them away from democractic will and collective values. The liberal principles of the priority of the right over the good and of ethical neutrality are determined by collective processes of will and opinion formation. In this context, Habermas conception of tolerance permitts citizens to reject each otherÂs life forms, alhtough imposing them to do it in a way that does not contradict moral standards of respect, which avoid discrimiation and authorize the self-realization of cultural life forms compatible with equal liberties for all; they are also obligated to coexist with the rejected life form if it is morally protected by what is stablished in a public consensus, deliberatively reached with recourse of discourses in the public spheres.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2013-07-30
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
status_str publishedVersion
format masterThesis
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://www.teses.ufc.br/tde_busca/arquivo.php?codArquivo=10336
url http://www.teses.ufc.br/tde_busca/arquivo.php?codArquivo=10336
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal do CearÃ
dc.publisher.program.fl_str_mv Programa de PÃs-GraduaÃÃo em Filosofia
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv UFC
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv BR
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal do CearÃ
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFC
instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará
instacron:UFC
reponame_str Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFC
collection Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFC
instname_str Universidade Federal do Ceará
instacron_str UFC
institution UFC
repository.name.fl_str_mv -
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mail@mail.com
_version_ 1643295179005755392