Ethics and fairness

09 Feb

Understanding what ethics is, as we have seen in previous posts, is fundamental to understanding what is fair, but great ethics has developed for contemporary idealism, and while neocontractualism is just a truth, the concept of ethics is essential for understand idealistic values.

The Hegelian system can be seen in three parts (only didactic): the idea, nature and the spirit, the idea is the general plan of modern philosophy (on the left the New Hegelians and on the right the Old Hegelians), nature is part essential to discuss contractualism and its aspects, the spirit is divided into: objective, subjective and absolute.

While the absolute refers to the idea of ​​“pure”, objective and subjective dualism are part of contemporary dualism, as for justice, the objective can be divided into: abstract right, morality and ethics.

It is a theme that is too long and profound, as is typical of Hegelian thought, but since consciously or unconsciously it dominates a good part of thought (at least the one that is elaborated on, it is common now not to elaborate and just say, like “simple as that”) , ethics is essential to read it.

In Principles of the Philosophy of Law, in paragraph 142 he writes: “that my will be placed as adequate to the concept and with this and with this overcome and with this its subjectivity preserved”, as is typical of idealism thought, objectivity overlaps subjectivity ( which is characteristic of the subject) and roughly speaking it can be said that here lies the fundamental difference with Paul Ricoeur, as he focuses on what is fair (subjective) and not justice.

The supposed passage from an abstract subjectivity to a substantial one and from a universal to a concrete one is accomplished in this way, ethics is the very definition of what is the good and what is of the subjective will, in the hermeneutic method, there is an intentionality and not a subjectivity .

Thus morality is reduced to social morality, or objective morality, as an individual it can only be realized in community and denies interiority or subjectivity.

However, there is no justice without fair men, and in many moments of history men had to break with tyrants, with false values ​​that were hidden around apparently altruistic social proposals, but whose project was one of domination, we have already differentiated power of domination .

In the hermeneutic perspective, both the unconscious and the imaginary are relevant to understanding a context, and they are almost always based on preconceptions, and the individual wonders how to insert himself in a story, he also wonders what objective action he should perform.

Regarding universality, phenomenology rejects the idea of ​​the “pure” abstract, Ricoeur sees a conflict between solidary particularism and that only a deepening of intercultural aspects can conclude which alleged universals will be recognized universals in different cultures.

When dealing with the issue of justice from the social perspective of goods, Ricoeur deals with the problem by analyzing the purely procedural conception made in Rawls, for him the problem of this conception lies in the fact that it does not realize the heterogeneity of the goods that are involved in terms of their distribution and for which institutions they were defined, political usage, proselytizing and duty-bearing define many institutions.

Ricoeur also analyzes the conflict of duties in the context of solicitude, and uses the case of Medicine in the context of Amnesty International, if he were writing now in the pandemic he would have a beautiful example to question this issue of the distribution of goods, as were the cases of vaccines .



Comentários estão fechados.