Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

Revisiting Parfit’s ‘Triple Theory’  Resumen: En On What Matters, Derek Parfit trata, según nos dice él mismo, de solucionar lo que Sidgwick denominó “el dualismo de la razón práctica”. Según Sidgwick, el intuicionismo y el consecuencialismo son fácilmente compatibles dentro de un utilitarismo sensato, si bien no se pueden hacer compatibles con el egoísmo ético. Parfit, quien considera a Kant y al propio Sidgwick como sus dos influencias más importantes, cree que es posible encontrar una solución a través de lo que denomina The Triple Theory. Una vez rechazado el egoísmo ético, el intuicionismo objetivista puede hacerse compatible con el universalismo kantiano a través del consecuencialismo de Thomas Scanlon. La articulación y defensa de esta propuesta conforman los tres gruesos volúmenes de On What Matters. En este trabajo trataré de argumentar que, además de tener que enfrentar importantes problemas teóricos ya clásicos, el proyecto de unificación de las diferentes propuestas éticas puede dejar sin contestar importantes cuestiones prácticas que eran tratadas por las distintas teorías por separado. Abstract: The main topic in On What Matters is, in Parfit’s own words, trying to solve what Henry Sidgwick called “the practical reason´s dualism”. Following Sidgwick, intuitionism and consequentialism are easily compatible related to a reasonable utilitarianism, but both became strongly incompatible with ethic egoism. Parfit, who considers Kant and Sidgwick as his most important influence, believes that it is possible to find a solution through what he calls “The Triple Theory”. Once rejected ethical egoism in his several forms, he thinks that objectivist intuitionism can be compatible with Kantian universalism through Thomas Scanlon consequentialism in his work What We Owe Each Other. The structure and defense of this thesis will make up most of the three volumes of On What Matters. In this essay I will try to argue that, in addition to having to face several classical criticisms, the aim of unifying different ethical theories can leave unanswered important practical questions that where dealt with by the different theories separately.

 Social pathologies. A debate in contemporary critical theory Resumen: El objetivo del presente trabajo es exponer los rasgos fundamentales del debate contemporáneo en torno a las llamadas patologías sociales, así como los principales diagnósticos sobre patologías sociales formulados por la teoría crítica contemporánea. Para ello analizaré en primer lugar el trabajo tradicionalmente considerado canónico para comprender el debate actual sobre las patologías sociales, a saber, un artículo de Axel Honneth publicado en 1994 bajo el título de “Patologías de lo social”. En segundo lugar, expondré algunos diagnósticos sobre patologías sociales concretas formulados por los principales representantes contemporáneos de la teoría crítica. Sobre la base de una visión panorámica de estos diagnósticos, procederé en tercer y último lugar a ofrecer una propuesta de definición provisional del concepto de patología social que tenga en cuenta las diversas posturas mantenidas en el debate filosófico actual. Abstract: The aim of this paper is to present the key features of the contemporary debate around the so-called social pathologies, as well as the main diagnoses on social pathologies formulated by contemporary critical theory. To do this, I first analyse the founding paper of the current debate on social pathologies: Axel Honneth’s work “Pathologies of the social”. Secondly, I present some diagnoses on concrete social pathologies formulated by the main contemporary representatives of critical theory. Based on an overview of these diagnoses, I offer a proposal for a provisional definition of the concept of social pathology that takes into account the different positions maintained in the current philosophical debate.

Ressenya / Reseña / Review Luarsabishvili, Vladimer (ed.) 2021, Rethinking Society: Individuals, Culture and Migration. Vol. 1: Individuals and Society, Tbilisi: New Vision University Press. ISBN 978-9941-9692-7-0, 121 páginas

Remission sentence by reading does not have the force of law, but, by resolution 391 of the National Council of Justice (2021), it allows inmates to reduce a few days in prison. In February 2020, however, the Penitentiary Administration Secretariat (SAP), through its Foundation (Funap/SP), censored 12 books that would be part of the itinerant collection for São Paulo prisons. We sought to understand, through Bakhtinian discourse analysis (2010), possible reasons that made these books subject to censorship, but we selected for analysis only Cabo de Guerra, by Ivone Benedetti, for having been a finalist for an important literary prize in 2010 and for its  verbal and imagery narrative. The proposed discussion is based on three axes: history of censorship in Brazil;; purposes of penalties and problematization of Brazilian policy on punishment. We recognize that the dehumanization of convicts in national prisons is aligned with the technical-legal view, despite the national legislation, which values ​​the humanist booklet. We conclude that the silencing and marginalization of prisoners is enhanced by actions such as Funap/SP, especially when it prevents them from knowing books that deal with aspects of life of which they are victims and perpetrators: betrayal, fear, violence and politics.

The objective of the present work is to analyse the critique of law present in the conference held by Walter Benjamin for a radio station in Frankfurt in 1931, entitled “Franz Kafka: The great wall of China”. This brief conference presents specificities if compared to his most known text on Kafka, written three years later when the Czech writer's death completed ten years. Based mainly on the main characters of The Castle and The Process, Benjamin discusses what would be a subject “without rights”; or a situation marked by what he called an “absence of law”. These phenomena do not lead Benjamin to propose a dichotomy that opposes the absence of law and the demand for its application and effectiveness. The relationship between law and absence of law is analysed in this conference as a result of a historical process, which appears in Kafka in literary form.

The article aims to articulate the contribution of Jean-Claude Carrière, in The Controversy, with the nascent problem of the relationship between the European and the Amerindians from 1492, and with the defense of human rights for modernity. From the reading of The Controversy, it opted for an analysis focusing on connections between law and literature, considering the scenario and the tensions and interests located in the novel, which were projected on to the normative provisions. The paper analyzes in what sense and why modern enslavement was different from the old one and how discussions, especially those led within the Catholic Church, indicate the germination of a human rights discourse that would only be consolidated centuries later in the bourgeois liberal revolutions. Starting from the reading of the novel, as a fiction, it is also possible to derive to questions about the role of the Spanish and Portuguese kingdoms in this discussion, as well as of the market interests, and what place led indigenous peoples in the approximations and resistances that built this relationship. It was investigated the issue of original peoples in Brazil and the formulation of legal solutions, by examining the concept of subject or personae. Finally, it was listed rules that projected humanist discourse in Brazil. The research demonstrates how these elements were articulated in the literary contribution of Jean-Claude Carrière, under the methodological option of the dialogue between Law and Literature.

Because of its content, because it highlights the immense inequality between men and women of flesh and blood, the modern or bourgeois novel educates the reader in what Martha Nussbaum calls "judgment of similar possibilities", encourages him to perceive the equal dignity of people: it is, therefore, a formidable promoter of the moral and legal value of equality. The modern novel does not limit itself to offer the public that individuals change according to circumstances, it accustoms them to thinking that they have the right to want to change: its appearance was therefore also a significant psychological factor in social mobility. After having unmasked the alibi of economic and social success as a synonym of merit and virtue and thus having called into question the imperfect affirmation of equality in the order of political relations (ending, in other words, the form of census democracy), literature presses today to free the principle of equality, universalist by essence, from another contradiction: from the decline on a small scale of individual and separate States. This is just one of the good reasons to introduce a little literature in the training of lawyers.

In this article we aim to demostrate not only that Kafka's work accounts for the inversion of the presumption of innocence into the presumption of guilt, but that this displacement responds to a structural tendency of the Law that can be characterized as the self-empowerment of the exception.  However, is this passage from innocence to guilt a necessary one? Is this logic inevitable? We also hold as a hypothesis that the Kafkaesque text offers certain guidelines to think of the Law in a different way, interrupting the empowerment of the exception, but without leaving the legal field.

This article aims to discuss the possibility of thinking Law not from a supposedly universal and abstract perspective, but from what the German philosopher Walter Benjamin called the tradition of the oppressed. The fundamental question here is not about who narrates the Law, but about which voices could have narrated them if they had not been silenced. Assuming with Benjamin that it is impossible to criticize an institution such as the law without deconstructing the language in which the legal universe is sedimented, the article resorts to literary language as a way of bringing to light silenced narratives. To do so, it also dialogues with the history of silence as told by the American writer Rebecca Solnit, aiming to see the reports of those who are authorized to speak as a small island in the middle of an ocean of silence. Finally, storytelling will be used as a privileged example of the type of linguistic deconstruction that is being defended.

"Antígona" es una de las tragedias griegas más conocidas y aún despierta un sinfín de posibilidades en el tránsito entre el derecho y la literatura. Este texto pretende resaltar las paradojas que el personaje trae al escenario político-jurídico y sus matices, permitiendo una mayor lectura para contribuir al debate sobre los conceptos de diké, soberanía, democracia y la inserción de la figura femenina en el escenario del pensamiento occidental.