Teisingumo sampratos problema globalizacijos procese.
MetadataShow full item record
The article analyses the issue of the concept of justice in the modern world. Current globalisation processes are often identified with westernisation and are particularly conflicting and ambiguous. Therefore, the article reviews the concepts of justice – liberalistic (J. Rawls), hermeneutic of the universal discourse (J. Habermas, R. Alexy), postmodernistic (J.–F. Lyotard, R. Rorty, J. Derrida), communitarian (A. MacItyre, Ch. Taylor, M. Walzer) – that are currently prevailing in the western tradition, and tries to establish their interrelationship as well as their influence to other traditions. Also, an attempt is made to find out whether a concept of justice is possible that would claim universality, universal recognition and importance. One of most eminent modern liberal scientist J. Rawls suggests that justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. In the J. Rawl’s hypothetical situation all the people are rational and blind of circumstances („veil of ignorance“). They negotiating to try to maximize positive outcomes and minimize negative outcomes (minimax principle) and they’d decide about two principles of justice: political equality and economic equality. For all that J. Rawls recognized that these two principles of justice could be formulated only in the liberal democratic countries, so his theory of justice isn’t universal. J. Habermas modified in his discourse of ethic the moral theory of I. Kant and formulated the conception of procedural justice. According to J. Habermas moral and law are built or speculated from discourse, i.e. from discussion of liberate and equal people, and in all society. J. Habermas suggests that this discourse goes on always, everyday and never stops. He find justice in building and agreement of rules of this public democratic discourse. So justice we can understand as rightness (R. Alexy). But the mane problem of the universal recognition of this theory is not rational argumentation in the building of law in some countries and traditions. Postmodernism pronounce the end of great narratives (religion, philosophy, law). J.–F. Lyotard called the situation of modern as "politic of terror". He says that now we need to recognize that there are many language games and it will not do to try legitimate one language game over the other. Also we need to learn to define the rules of language within our local situation. By local situation he means, for example, having coffee at the table or a specific online discussion. So we must find some way to strive for justice without first having to agree what kind of law is just. J. Derrida's own statements on the relationship between justice and deconstruction have proven somewhat unhelpful. In his most extended discussion of the subject, Derrida insisted simultaneously that (1) justice is impossible; (2) justice is not deconstructible; (3) law is deconstructible; (4) the undeconstructibility of justice and the deconstructibility of law ensure the possibility of deconstruction; and (5) deconstruction is justice. For all that we can say that the end of great narratives came not in the all countries and cultures, where one language game (religion, local virtues) are still important. Communitarianism argues that liberalism ignore community and this is one of the most important reasons of leveling of globalisation processes. Every individual must be prepared to give up some rights for the sake of his (her) community. Communities need cooperative virtues, shared goals, shared obligations, so the concept of justice depends from the local communities values, traditions and are different in every community. In general we could recognize the concept of justice in contemporary process of globalisation not as one universal idea but as various values in different countries, traditions and cultures.
- Straipsniai / Articles